Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout05/08/2003Minutes of a Regular Meeting Approved 6/12/03 Town of Los Altos Hills PLANNING COMMISSION Thursday, May 8, 2003, 7:00 p.m. Council Chambers, 26379 Fremont Road cc: Cassettes ( 1 ) #05-03 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: Commissioners Clow, Cottrell, Kerns & Wong Absent: Chairman Vitu Staff: Carl Cahill, Planning Director; Angelica Herrera, Assistant Planner; Debbie Pedro, Assistant Planner; Lam Smith, Planning Secretary 4 2. PRESENTATIONS FROM THE FLOOR -none ar 3. PUBLIC HEARINGS 3.1 LANDS OF NOGHREY, 27935 Roble Blanco (70 -03 -PM); A request for a modification to the Site Development Permit (File #102-00-ZP-SD-GD) condition of approval regarding selection of exterior paint color (reflectivity value) for the new residence. (staff -Angelica Herrera) Staff introduced this item by providing an overview of the staff report and by indicating the properties within 500 feet of the subject property and the three neighbors (Collins, Ernst & Fogel) who have submitted written documents regarding opposing the change to the approved colors. Mrs. Dauber, owner of Parcel 27, was also present. It was noted that there has been no change to the reflectivity value wording since the applicant's house was approved. OPENED PUBLIC HEARING Tom and Anna Noghrey, 27935 Roble Blanco, applicants, have lived in the house since 1994 before deciding to rebuild. He commented on the condition placed on the approval for a house color reflectivity value of 50 or less. This is a Mediterranean style house and would not look good in a brown or dark gray. He provided photographs of other homes in the area that have recently been painted. As noted in the staff report regarding visibility, there are dense and tall shrubbery and trees existing between the subject property and adjacent properties to the east and west that break up the view of the new two-story residence. Also, several oak and pepper trees at the southwestern corner of the property screen the two-story residence from properties toward Planning Commission Minutes Approved 6112/03 May 8, 2003 Page 2 the entrance of Roble Blanco Court. On the north side of the property there are 22 trees (oaks and pines) making it impossible to see the structure. On the left of the site there are 30 year old mature trees. He would be happy to plant as many trees as required to screen the house from the street. He did not know what else to do to make the house invisible and he was open to any recommendations or suggestions. Bruce Fogel, 27950 Roble Blanco, has reviewed the color selection as well as the Town ordinance regarding reflectivity value. He was in support of the ordinance and not in favor of the new color choice. The house is very visible and no matter how many trees are planted on the property, he will still see the house. He noted the receipt of a fax from his neighbor, Mrs. Ernst, at 28525 Matadero Creek Lane whose house looks directly over his house and onto the Noghrey site who was also opposed to the color chosen by the applicant. Mr. Fogel felt the applicants and neighbors have been put in a difficult position (the applicant went door to door asking for the opinions of the neighbors) and for the neighbors who were in support the Town ordinances. Marilyn Fogel, 27950 Roble Blanco, felt there were several points of agreement regarding keeping the harmony of the neighborhood and agreement with previous comments regarding neighbors supporting Town ordinances. Regarding the reflectivity, the staff report indicates that the house is highly visible and she felt the Town should adhere to the guidelines and the home owners should take responsibility for mitigating the visual impact of this highly visible house. She provided photographs of the home from different directions (Roble Blanco and Matadem f Creek Lane) for review. She felt it was possible to have a Mediterranean style house with low ` reflective colors. She commented on the initial Fast Track meeting where the applicant indicated the choice of colors to be more earth tone and the initial colors submitted met that requirement. Maureen Collens, 27955 Roble Blanco, reviewed the original approved colors submitted versus the newer colors and felt there was no comparison. The Town should maintain codes and requirements. The codes should not be ignored. She has a clear view of the new house which is larger than the previous house and has been moved forward on the property which cuts into her view. She will see more of the house now. Herman Lin, 27940 Roble Blanco, moved into the house in November, 2001, after the Nogrey house was approved. He was very concerned with the visibility of the house as he has to look at it every day. He does not like the proposed color nor does his wife or son. Tom Noghrey did not want to be treated any differently than anyone else. The photographs provided were homes on Roble Blanco or Paseo del Roble. He is only asking to paint the house similar to the other houses in the area; certainly not brown or dark gray. Mrs. Collins mentioned that the house is very visible from her property. He felt the house was more visible due to one of the tree branches which broke during construction and made it more visible. He only wants the color to be close to what the other neighbors used. CLOSED PUBLIC HEARING `7 Planning Commission Minutes Approved 6/12/03 May 8, 2003 Page 3 Commissioner Kerns commented on the ordinance, as written, which applies to the original color of the home. Anyone after moving in can certainly paint the house any color after final. In order to make the findings, they need to say there is nothing that can mitigate the house. One mitigation tool is landscaping. On this particular site there is a lot of existing landscaping around the home and the applicant indicated he would be willing to plant more landscaping. He could support the request to modify the condition as he felt additional landscaping can mitigate it. He did not feel this house is any more visible than other houses in Town and there are similar homes in the immediate area that have similar colors as requested by the applicant. Commissioner Cottrell stated that the Town's policies and codes do have dichotomy and the reflectivity only applies to the initial coat of paint and the initial approval. He would suspect that many of the homes on Roble Blanco have been repainted. He has been on the Commission for five years and they have applied the reflectivity policy on every home they can. He only knew of one exception approved by the City Council. He could not support the applicant's request and felt they could find lighter colors which meet the reflectivity value requirements. Also, more landscaping will mitigate the view problem. Commissioner Wong agreed with Commissioner Cottrell. He felt the applicant could work with the neighbors regarding an acceptable color. Commissioner Clow also agreed with previous comments. The testimony received is evident that the reflectivity value standards actually reflect real concerns by neighbors regarding the lighter color. Given their comments, he supports the ordinances as written. MOTION SECONDED AND PASSED: Motion by Commissioner Cottrell and seconded by Commissioner Wong to deny a modification to the Site Development Permit (File #102-00-ZP- SD-GD) condition of approval regarding selection of exterior paint color (reflectivity value) for the new residence, Lands of Noghrey, 27935 Roble Blanco. AYES: Commissioners Wong, Cottrell & Clow NOES: Commissioner Kerns ABSENT: Chairman Vitu This is subject to a 23 day appeal period 3.2 LANDS OF BOWES, 12859 Normandy Lane (2-03-ZP-SD-VAR); A request for a Site Development Permit for a 5,689 square foot new residence with a 1,697 square foot basement (maximum height 30 feet), and a variance for a 1,057 square foot detached garage and second unit above the garage to encroach into the rear yard setback. (staff -Debbie Pedro) Staff noted an error in the project description on the agenda. The proposal does not include a secondary dwelling unit, but only a guest suite above the garage which does not include kitchen facilities. She further discussed the proposal, and the request for a variance to allow a detached three -car garage with a guest suite behind the main residence to obtain some private outdoor Planning Commission Minutes Approved 6112/03 May 8, 2003 Page 4 living area (visual and noise issues). The property is constrained by its unusual location and surroundings because the rear property line abuts the on-ramp to I-280 at El Monte Road. Discussion ensued regarding the uniqueness of this variance request. OPENED PUBLIC HEARING Chris Spalding, 801 Camelia Street, Berkeley, project architect, discussed the design and the feel of the neighborhood. The site did have the problem with the freeway so early on they tried to figure out how to provide privacy from the freeway. The two-story accessory building provides that shelter. The pie shape lot constrained the design. The variance will not harm anyone as there are only two close homes which are not effected by the new construction (pulled bulk away from them). The design took into consideration both properties. It was noted that the main residence was eligible for an increase in structure height (30 feet) subject to an increase in distance from the property lines. Commissioner Cottrell asked if there was room on the property for the fifth parking space if the applicants decide to change the guest suite into a secondary unit. The response was yes. Mike Bowes, 12859 Normandy Lane, applicant, commented on the neighbor to the right who supports the project and even suggested moving the structure into his setback area. Sandy Humphries, Environmental Design Committee, questioned the reason for the variance f request as she could not find one. She felt a better place for privacy would be further behind the S/ residence for privacy for their personal space. She felt there was plenty of flat space and felt there was no reason for a variance. Chris Spalding stated that the detached building is a garage and cannot be moved behind the house because the driveway goes with it. They also did not want the kitchen and nook to be overlooking the accessory building. They felt the design as presented was the best to maximize visual and audio privacy. Mike Bowes stated if they moved the garage over the drivers on the on-ramp would be looking straight down onto the property. N1C7b9g77171:34LM7rG\:7u[e' Commissioner Wong felt this was a unique triangular shape lot. The only place to build is in the center of the property. He felt the house and garage would not be a visual impact to anyone. He asked that they be specific regarding variance findings as if there are no unusual circumstances it would be hard to approve the project with the variance. Commissioner Cottrell also felt this was a difficult lot (shape of the property) and that alone would be findings. He could support the application and variance. This application posses no harm to anyone; people on the ramp or neighbors. They are not granting special privileges. Planning Commission Minutes Approved 6/12/03 May 8, 2003 Page 5 Commissioner Kerns agreed commenting on this unique lot and the noise and visual impacts which will be reduced. He agreed with staff variance findings. Commissioner Clow agreed with the comments. Typically, you do not have properties next to a freeway ramp elevated 25 feet. It will not be detrimental to anyone. The intent and purpose of the ordinances are to protect neighbors and people driving down residential neighborhoods from the impact of structures. This situation is unique and he could support the variance. MOTION SECONDED AND PASSED: Motion by Commissioner Kerns and seconded by Commissioner Cottrell to approved the request for a Site Development Permit for a 5,689 square foot new residence with a 1,697 square foot basement (maximum height 30 feet), and a variance for a 1,057 square foot detached garage and seeend-unit guest suite above the garage to encroach into the rear yard setback. AYES: Commissioners Cottrell, Wong, Kerns & Clow NOES: None ABSENT: Chairman Vim This approval is subject to a 23 day appeal period 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 for April 170 — commented on the following: Lands of Leung; and Lands of Mehta. 6.2 Planning Commission Representative for May 1" Commissioner Clow, reported on the following: View and Sunlight Protection Ordinance and Council action (include adequate wording regarding nesting birds); and Lands of Askan. 6.3 Planning Commission Representative for May 151h — Commissioner Cottrell 6.4 Planning Commission Representative for June 5" — Commissioner Kems APPROVAL OF MINUTES 7.1 Approval of April 10, 2003 minutes PASSED BY CONSENSUS: To approve the April 10, 2003 minutes. Planning Commission Minutes Approved 6/12/03 May 8, 2003 Page 6 8. REPORT FROM SITE DEVELOPMENT MEETING —APRIL 15, 22, 29 & MAY 6 2003 8.1 LANDS OF EWALD, 26131 Altadena Drive (191-02-ZP-SD); A request for a Site Development Permit for a pool, spa and hardscape improvements. Approved with conditions. 8.2 LANDS OF WOO & TAM, 27890 Elena Road (39-03-ZP-SD); A request for a Site Development Permit for a landscape screening plan and hardscape improvements. Approved with conditions. 8.3 LANDS OF SHFVIMON, 24301 Elise Court (38-03-ZP-SD); A request for a Site Development Permit for a 572 square foot basement expansion. Approved with conditions. 8.4 LANDS OF DYKES & CALDERON, 12200 Kate Drive (36-03-ZP-SD); A request for a Site Development Permit for landscape screening and hardscape improvements. Approved with conditions. 8.5 LANDS OF GIAKOUMIS, 12368 Priscilla Lane (244-02-ZP-SD); A request for a Site Development Permit for landscape screening modifications to a previously approved pool and cabana. Continued to a future meeting. 8.6 LANDS OF KIRSCH TRUST (Mont Williamson), 12012 Adobe Creek Lodge Road (53-03-ZP-SD-VAR); A request for a Site Development Permit for a trellis and a variance to encroach into the rear yard 30 -foot setback. Approved with conditions. 9. ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned by consensus at 8:00 p.m. Resp fully submitted, Lam Smith Planning Secretary