Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout06/7/2012 Approved July 19,2012 Minutes of a Regular Meeting Town of Los Altos Hills PLANNING COMMISSION THURSDAY, June 7, 2012, 7:00 p.m. Council Chambers, 26379 Fremont Road 1. ROLL CALL AND PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE The regular meeting of the Planning Commission was called to order at 7:00 p.m. in the Council Chambers at Town Hall. Present: Commissioners: Abraham, Clow,Harpootlian, and Partridge Absent: None Staff: Debbie Pedro, Planning Director; Brian Froelich, Associate Planner; and Sarah Corso, Community Development Specialist. The Planning Commission acknowledged.former Chairman, Ray Collins, for her work on the Planning Commission, and presented her with a gift of gratitude. As Vice Chairman, Commissioner Partridge will chair the meeting. Commissioner Partridge stated that the applicant for Item 3.1, Lands of Yui, has requested to continue the project to the July 19, 2012 Planning Commission meeting. 2. PRESENTATIONS FROM THE FLOOR—none 3. PUBLIC HEARINGS- Planning Commission Ex Parte Contacts Policy Disclosure: Commissioner Harpootlian met with Mr. Winters at the property for Item 3.2. Commissioner Abraham spoke with the contractor for Item 3.2. Commissioner Clow met with a representative for Item 3.2. Commissioner Partridge met with the applicant for Item 3.2. 3.2 LANDS OF THRUN, 13818 Page Mill Road; File #57-12-ZP-SD-GD; A request for a Site Development Permit for a landscape screening plan for a 5,026 square foot new residence with a 4,916 square foot basement approved by the Planning Commission on May 5, 2011. The proposal includes a request for heritage oak tree removal and a Grading Policy Exception to reduce the height of the driveway retaining walls by cutting up to six (6) feet and to fill up to five (5) feet to accommodate relocation Planning Commission Minutes Approved July 19,2012 June 7,2012 Page 2 of the swimming pool. CEQA Review: Categorical Exemption per Section 15303(e) (staff-Brian Froelich). Brian Froelich, Associate Planner, presented the staff report. The Planning Commission is reviewing the landscape plan per the conditions of approval for the new residence. The application is also requesting to amend the previously approved grading plan to allow for further grading exceptions; to move the swimming pool three feet downhill; to modify the water features; and to remove two oak trees and one pine tree. The applicant has requested to grade up to eight feet near the driveway, which will lower the height of the retaining wall from eight to ten feet tall, down to two feet. There is also a request for five feet of fill near the pool,which is being constructed three feet further downhill than shown on the approved set of plans. Regarding tree removal, one fifteen inch oak tree is proposed to be removed near the swimming pool and another twelve inch oak tree near the driveway, which was requested by the Planning Commission to be relocated. The arborist report suggests that the tree is a poor specimen for relocation. The pine tree to be removed is currently leaning and is one of four trees the Planning Commission requested be preserved until a landscape screen plan was submitted. swearing in The applicant is proposing to add six, thirty-six inch box oak trees; five cypress trees; nine holy leaf cherry trees; along with native shrubs and lawn. Staff has asked the Planning Commission to consider whether the pool and water features,which were approved with the new residence, should be calculated towards the overall landscaping area for the property. Doing so would put the landscape coverage over five thousand square feet and require a full landscape screening plan per the water efficient landscape ordinance. Commissioner Partridge asked staff to clarify the relocation of the pool. Planner Froelich explained that when the site plan was submitted to the building department, the swimming pool was shown three feet further downhill than had been approved by the Planning Commission. Construction had started prior to Town staff identifying the problem and a stop work notice was given. An amendment to the original plan has been submitted with a request to relocate the swimming pool, and a grading policy exception for up to five feet of fill. Staff is recommending denial because had the plans been submitted with the swimming pool proposed in the current location, staff would have recommended the swimming pool be moved to comply with the grading policy. Commissioner Partridge asked staff about the eight to ten feet of cut along the front of the property. Associate Planner Froelich explained that the cut is for consistency, and given the size of the lot and amount of grading being requested, is far less grading than what is typically proposed. COMMISSIONER PARTRIDGE OPENED THE PUBLIC HEARING Sebastian Thrun, applicant, explained that he has built a five thousand square foot house on a nine acre lot, and due to the round shape of the home and current vegetation, is already difficult to see. The changes being proposed to the grading and landscape plans are the reflecting pool Planning Commission Minutes Approved July 19,2012 June 7,2012 Page 3 located on the west side of the property is now circular, a platform has been added to the southwest side of the property, removal of the eight to ten foot retaining wall on the southeast side of he property, and the removal of one pine tree and two oak trees. Mr. Thrun addressed concerns of neighbors by stating that the home is single story, and cannot be seen by most neighbors. He is not proposing to remove existing shrubs blocking views of the house, and he believes with the landscape screening plan, the home will be better screened than many neighboring properties. He explained that the total amount of earthwork is small and will have little impact on neighbors. There is an existing guesthouse which will be further screened from neighbors once four new trees are planted in front of the house. The removal of the pine tree will allow the retaining wall along the driveway be lowered to two feet. Commissioner Harpootlian asked the applicant about his findings for grading near the driveway, other than reducing the height of the retaining wall. The applicant's main concern with the wall is aesthetics. Commissioner Harpootlian stated that when the new residence was proposed to the Planning Commission, he did not support the height of the retaining wall and wanted to see the wall terraced which is consistent with Town guidelines. Commissioner Partridge asked the applicant about his justification for removing the oak tree near the swimming pool. The applicant stated that his main reason for removing the oak tree is to open views from the swimming pool. Commissioner Partridge asked the applicant about the proposed cherry trees. The applicant stated that the trees would be eight feet tall when planted and grow to be about fifteen to twenty feet tall and are meant to screen the guest house. Dru Anderson, neighbor on Saddle Court, supports the overall project but has concerns about the amount of grading being proposed and the resulting impacts. She requested the Planning Commission focus more attention on elevations and renderings to identify the impacts of eight feet of grading. She also requested adding more trees to the landscape screening plan. Jitze Couperus, resident on Page Mill Road, stated that the pine trees currently screening the home are bald on the bottom and bushy on top, therefore exposing the house to neighbors and blocking views above the house. He stated that if he were a neighbor, he would ask the applicant to replace the pine trees with something bushier such as oak trees. Commissioner Clow suggested the applicant plant oak trees near the existing pine trees,therefore if the pine trees die within a few years,the oak trees would have enough time to grow and screen the residence. He said that the removal of the one pine tree would allow room for one or two oak trees to be planted. Planning Commission Minutes Approved July 19,2012 June 7,2012 Page 4 The applicant noted that there is not enough space near the pine trees to plant oak trees. Dru Anderson suggested that the pine trees would shade out the oak trees, and past practice has been to thin out the canopy of the pine trees to allow for pockets of light. Commissioner Harpootlian asked the applicant how granting the grading exception would change the landscape screening plans, as they are currently presented. The applicant explained that little vegetation would be removed to perform the grading. COMMISSIONER PARTRIDGE CLOSED THE PUBLIC HEARING Commissioner Abraham supports the grading exception to the north of the property, stating that it makes sense to reduce the height of an eight to ten foot retaining wall because it will improve the overall project. He supports removing the pine tree and the oak tree nearest the driveway. He believes that it is an unfortunate accident and oversight that the swimming pool was constructed three feet further downhill than approved, and he supports approving the new location of the swimming pool. He would support removing the oak tree near the swimming pool, provided that it is mitigated by additional oak trees in another location on the property. Commissioner Harpootlian supports the northern grading exception because it improves something that he believes should never have been approved in the first place. He agrees with Commissioner Abraham about the swimming pool, supports removing the trees, and requested that the Planning Commission require the applicant to submit a full landscape plan per the requirements of the water efficient landscape ordinance to be reviewed administratively. He explained that a full landscape plan is required by the state, for landscape projects covering five thousand square feet or greater. A full landscape plan allows the applicant to see the amount and cost of water used to support the landscaping. He acknowledged that the project, due to the size of the property,would be well under budget, but he believes that it is important the applicant see the amount of water that will be needed to support his landscaping. Commissioner Clow concurs with his fellow Commissioners. He supports adding a requirement that the applicant submit a full landscape plan and believes the water features should be considered when calculating the total landscape for the current application. He supports removing the leaning pine tree and the oak tree on the northern side of the property, which he does not believe is a good candidate for relocating. He does not support removing the oak tree near the swimming pool. He supports the northern side grading exception and would like the • applicant to plant trees where he grades. He also supports the new location of the pool and the grading exception to allow the pool to stay in its current location. Commissioner Partridge supports leaving the pool in its current location because he does not believe it is reasonable to uproot the current development. He does not support removing the oak tree near the pool but does support removing the northern oak tree near the driveway.Even if one oak tree is removed, he would like to see six new oak trees planted along the property to screen the residence. He supports the northern grading exception and lowering the retaining wall. He Planning Commission Minutes Approved July 19,2012 June 7,2012 Page 5 agrees with Commissioner Harpootlian that the applicant should be required to submit a full landscape screening plan, which does not need to be reviewed by the Planning Commission. MOTION MADE, SECONDED, AND PASSED BY ROLL CALL VOTE: Commissioner Clow moved to: (1) approve the grading exception for the swimming pool with the findings that the pool is not visible from neighboring properties,the amount of fill is minimal, and noting that the incorrect location of the pool was an unintentional error on the side of the applicant; (2) approve the grading exception for up to eight feet of cut near the driveway, per findings in the staff report; (3) approve the request to remove the pine tree and twelve inch oak tree near the driveway, per findings presented in the staff report; (4) deny removal of the fifteen inch oak tree near the swimming pool; (5) require the applicant to submit a full landscape plan to be reviewed by staff; and (6) recommend planting of an oak tree in the area where the eight foot cut will be removed, at the applicants discretion. Debbie Pedro, Planning Director, clarified that the Planning Commission is requiring the applicant to comply with the Water Efficient Landscape Ordinance, which includes the submittal of a parcel water budget, the landscape water use calculation, and an irrigation plan; to be submitted for staff review, prior to the final inspection of the house. Seconded by Commissioner Abraham. AYES: Commissioners: Abraham, Clow,Harpootlian, and Partridge NOES: None ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: None 4. OLD BUSINESS—none 5. NEW BUSINESS—none 6. REPORTS FROM CITY COUNCIL MEETINGS 6.1 Planning Commission Representative for May 17—Commissioner Harpootlian 6.2 Planning Commission Representative for May 31 — 6.3 Planning Commission Representative for June 21 —Commissioner Clow 6.4 Planning Commission Representative for July 31 —Commissioner Partridge 7. APPROVAL OF MINUTES 7.1 Approval of May 3 2012 minutes. • Planning Commission Minutes Approved July 19,2012 June 7,2012 Page 6 MOTION MADE, SECONDED, AND PASSED BY CONSENSUS: Motioned by Commissioner Clow and seconded by Commissioner Abraham to approve the May 3, 2012 minutes. 8. REPORTS FROM FAST TRACK MEETINGS —MAY 15,AND JUNE 5, 2012 8.1 LANDS OF KLEMM; 12033 Green Hills Court; File #43-12-ZP-SD; A request for a Site Development Permit for a 309 square foot first floor addition, a 152 square foot second floor addition, and major interior remodel. CEQA review: Categorical Exemption per Section 15303(a) (staff-Nicole Horvitz). 8.2 LANDS OF MCLAREN& CHAN; 25900 Vinedo Lane;File#56-12-ZP- SD; A request for a Site Development Permit for a 214 square foot first floor addition and major interior remodel. CEQA review: Categorical Exemption per Section 15303(a) (staff-Nicole Horvitz). • 9. REPORTS FROM SITE DEVELOPMENT MEETINGS — MAY 8, MAY 15, AND MAY 22, MAY 29, AND JUNE 5, 2012 9.1 LANDS OF BOYLE; 26111 Mulberry Lane; File #11-12-ZP-SD; A request for a Site Development Permit for a landscape screening plan for a first and second story addition and interior remodel, a new pool house, and swimming pool approved on July 27, 2010. CEQA review: Categorical Exemption per Section 15304 (b) (Staff-Nicole Horvitz). 9.2 LANDS OF RIZZI; 12615 Miraloma Way; File #52-12-ZP-SD; A request for a Site Development Permit for a landscape screening plan for a 2,604 square foot single story accessory structure approved on September 20, 2011. CEQA review: Categorical Exemption per Section 15304 (b) (Staff-Nicole Horvitz). 9.3 LANDS OF SCOTT; 13833 Campo Vista Lane; File #65-12-ZP-SD; A request for a Site Developnient Permit for a landscape screening plan for a new two story residence with a basement, pool house, and swimming pool approved on February 9, 2010. CEQA review: Categorical Exemption per Section 15304 (b) (Staff-Nicole Horvitz). 9.4 LANDS OF MAKOWER; 14300 Miranda Road; File #28-12-ZP-SD; A request for a Site Development Permit for a landscape screening plan for a two story new residence with a basement, bunker, and a swimming pool approved on October 7, 2010. CEQA review: Categorical Exemption per Section 15304 (b) (Staff-Nicole Horvitz). Planning Commission Minutes Approved July 19,2012 June 7,2012 Page 7 9.5 LANDS OF BROUGHER; 26974 Fremont Road; File #25-12-ZP-SD; A request for a Site Development Permit for a new 1,500 square foot sports court. CEQA review: Categorical Exemption per Section 15303(e) (Staff- Brian Froelich). 9.6 LANDS OF NAGEL, 26525 Weston Drive; File #69-12-ZP-SD; A request for a Site Development Permit for a landscape screening plan for a 5,778 square foot new residence approved on October 20, 2009. CEQA review: Categorical Exemption per Section 15304 (b) (Staff-Cynthia Richardson). 9.7 LANDS OF CARTER & BRADY; 13770 Robleda Road; File #60-12- ZP-SD-VAR; A request for a Site Development Permit for a new 712 square foot single story pool house with a minor variance for eave encroachment of up to two (2) feet into the north and south side yard setbacks. CEQA review: Categorical Exemption per Section 15303(e) (Staff-Nicole Horvitz). 10. ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned by consensus at 8:54 p.m. Respectfully submitted, • / '/p. /e Deborah Padovan City Clerk The minutes for the June 7, 2012 Regular Commission Meeting were approved on July 19, 2012.