Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout06/09/1993APPROVED Minutes of a Regular Meeting Town of Los Altos Hills PLANNING COMMISSION Wednesday, June 9,1993,7:30 P.M. Council Chambers, 26379 Fremont Road cc: Cassettes #11-93 (z) 1. ROLL CALL AND PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE Planning Commission meeting was called to order at 7:30 p.m. in the Council Chambers at Town Hall. Present: Chairman Pahl, Commissioners Cheng, Comiso, Ellinger, Schreiner, & Stutz Absent: Commissioner Sinnott Staff: Jeff Peterson, City Engineer; Lani Lonberger, Planning Secretary C .r •� C•u $•C Persons wishing to address the Commission on any subject not on the agenda are invited to do so now. Please note, however, that the Commission is not able to undertake extended discussion or take action tonight on non-agendized items. Such items will be referred to Staff or placed on the agenda for a future meeting. None Items appearing on the Consent Calendar are considered routine and will be adopted in one motion, except for any item removed for separate consideration elsewhere on the agenda. The Chairman will ask the Commission and the audience for requests to remove these items. None • c e • �� r. • � uc r • t I. �[CYk] 4.1 Planning Commission Representative was Chairman Pahl. Items discussed at the City Council meeting were as follows: Lands of Garrow was pulled from the Consent Calendar; Lands of Harrington request for reimbursement of fees and costs for lot line adjustment was denied; request for Council action regarding neighbors' fence issue, Planning Commission Minutes APPROVED June 9, 1993 Page 2 Joan Moeller, was continued; Urgency Ordinance regarding one-way traffic for certain trucks on Stonebrook Road was passed. The Planning Commission Representative for June 16, 1993 will be Commissioner Comiso. 5.1 LANDS OF BURNETT, 25620 Deerfield Drive; A request for a Conditional Development Permit for a Second Story Addition and Driveway Modification. Commissioner Comiso discussed the Conditional Development Permit, questioning how they could approve a CDP for a second story as this permit requires that they set a level of floor and development area. Commissioner Stutz noted that any time a property is in this category of less than 1/2 unit and low acreage, the Planning Commission can set limits of development and floor area. Commissioner Comiso asked if the Planning Commission was willing to set the limits at this meeting. It was suggested to hear the application first and then make their determination. Commissioner Schreiner noted that story poles were not in place on this property. She questioned the road right-of-way which she thought was 40'. She asked Mr. Peterson why they were not asking for road right-of-way dedication. Mr. Peterson explained the policy. For a new residence, subdivision or for what the Town terms a major addition, they ask for road right-of-way. Because this project was an addition of roughly 600 sq. ft. it was deemed a minor addition and therefore the right-of-way was not requested. Mr. Peterson noted that if a road right-of-way was requested, it would be an additional 10'. It was noted that on page 5 of the Staff Report, "CONDITION NUMBER 6" should be ,.5,. OPENED PUBLIC HEARING Mark Burnett, 25620 Deerfield Drive, applicant, stated they had owned the property for 6 years. They have modified one end of the house to make it more like its original design built in 1939. They would like to do the same to the back end of the house, adding the space above the garage without increasing the size of the floor pad. He stated the property line actually extended completely to the other side of the road so the road is entirely on their property at this time. He further discussed the size of other houses in their area. Commissioner Comiso noted that the Planning Commission could not consider what was given to other properties as any kind of "precedent" in his area as they take each property separately and each property must stand on its own merits. Planning Commission Minutes APPROVED June 9, 1993 Page 3 A letter from Stephanie Munoz was provided to the Planning Commission and it was noted that Ms. Munoz was within 500' of the Burnetts. Commissioner Ellinger discussed the length of time the Burnetts have been in their house, their remodeling efforts to maintain the original state, and now their plans to remodel the other end of the home, again maintaining the original state, only adding living space above it. The house is in its original footprint and its original character. Commissioner Ettinger asked Mr. Burnett the views they expected to see from the second story. Mr. Burnett responded, from the front windows they would only be looking into the trees and would not be able to see the house next door. From the back view they would see across the valley. He mentioned that the total increase in height of the garage was only 4'. There was a copy of a letter from Virgil Gualtieri included in the Staff Report. It was noted that his letter was in the same category as Ms. Munoz' letter in that he stated he has no objection to the Burnetts' request. He is on the corner of Burke Road and Fremont and would not be impacted by this project. Commissioner Stutz discussed the drain field and noted that the Burnetts had the Santa Clara County Health Department's approval for their drain fields which were modified 3 years ago. Commissioner Stutz also discussed the driveway coming off Deerfield and asked if the applicants were extending the driveway down by the front of the house. 4or Mr. Burnett stated there were no plans to extend the driveway. He further discussed the requirement for 4 car drive -on spaces and that they currently have 2 spaces in the garage and one space on the driveway. It was thought to remove 3 birch trees and add gravel so a car could park in that area. CLOSED PUBLIC HEARING Commissioner Schreiner was concerned with the gravel area for the extra parking, the amount of development and the lot being a substandard lot. She questioned whether Deerfield could support this type of development. It was recognized that there was no formula for this property as the Planning Commission sets the formula on a request for a Conditional Development Permit. Commissioner Schreiner noted she did speak to Stephanie Munoz regarding her letter. The Commission further discussed the Burnetts owning all the road in front of their home, the lot size being .44 acres not including the road in front of their home and the distance from the house to edge of pavement being 28'. The road right -of way was discussed by the City Engineer noting that the plan did not indicate the Burnetts' property line extending to the other side of the street. The cover sheet shows the center line of the street being the farthest extent of the property line and the 20' right-of-way being taken from that point. Planning Commission Minutes APPROVED June 9, 1993 Page 4 Commissioner Comiso discussed the Conditional Development Permit and asked if this property could support this development and if it was appropriate. She felt the project was increasing the mass of the house, however, the floor print was staying the same. Also, the project fits well into the surroundings and fits with the rural character. The applicants are only asking for a bedroom and she felt this piece of property could support the addition. Commissioner Eflinger noted this project was completely mitigated by landscaping, it did not impinge on views, it did not change the footprint, the drain fields support the addition. He did not see any reason to deny the project. MOTION SECONDED: Motion by Commissioner Ellinger and seconded by Commissioner Cheng to approve the application as conditioned by Staff. Commissioner Schreiner recommended an extra dedication of 10' of right-of-way within which a path could be constructed, and she would also recommend a condition regarding the property being maxed in development area and floor area, stating the MDA and MFA which would be allowed on this lot. Further discussion ensued regarding the recommendation of an additional 10' of right- of-way. It was noted that from Deerfield from the top of the right-of-way, there was only 18' to the house, which may infringe on the privacy of the owners. It was suggested putting the pathway in the right-of-way which currently exists. There were 2 questions which needed to be addressed prior to voting which were the width of the road and setting the limit for the Conditional Development Permit. It was noted that the street was only between 16' to 18' wide. It was felt that pathways were important, as were property rights and privacy. It was asked if the path could be put in the road right-of-way off the pavement. Commissioner Stutz stated she would be willing to request the path in the road right-of-way adjacent to the pavement with an additional 10' right-of-way. Although the Town does not always use their right-of-ways, they should be preserved for the future. The extra right-of-way would not be for a pathway but to insure a right-of-way on Deerfield. Commissioner Ellinger preferred making the motion on the basis of the proposal as submitted by the applicants. In reference to the extra dedication for the pathway, he felt the path comes very close to the house which is on a very constrained lot. The levels of development set for the Conditional Development Permit, as noted in the Staff report, are 6,591 sq. ft. MDA and 3,277 sq. ft. MFA. Commissioner Stutz noted that the Commission was very generous in their numbers as this was an increase of 10% of both MDA and MFA. Planning Commission Minutes APPROVED June 9, 1993 Page 5 MOTION SECONDED AND AMENDED: Motion by Commissioner Ellinger and seconded by Commissioner Cheng to approve the application as conditioned by Staff and amended to include the Conditional Development Permit levels of development as follows: MDA 6,591 sq. ft and MFA 3,277 sq. ft. It was noted that the road right-of-way and the pathway were not part of this motion. Commissioner Ellinger stated he would be willing to take a 5 minute break and have someone draw in a road right-of-way and the interpretation on the plan so the Commission could continue the discussion. Commissioner Ellinger was reluctant to discuss the road right-of-way and pathway at this time or to accept the chart as fact based on Commissioner Stutz' comments regarding accuracy. He would be inclined to accept the most recently dated documents, the applicant's cover Site Development Plan, however, it lacked the details he needed showing the location of edge of pavement. The City Engineer noted that there was no way to verify the accuracy of the map in 5 minutes or one hour. This could be accomplished by a survey to establish accuracy. If the concern was just of the area within the right-of-way and adjacent to the right-of- way, this could be verified by a field visit. Mr. Peterson further discussed the Site Plan. It appeared to be easier to build a pathway closer to the road. The Commission could condition the applicant to construct a pathway with the maximum distance between the pathway and edge of pavement as feasible, to the satisfaction of the City Engineer, within the road right-of-way. Chairman Pahl and Commissioner Stutz would rather see the pathway adjacent to the pavement as a 5' path and not a 10' path for legal access purposes. Further discussion included comments from the applicant stating the property currently does not have enough room for a pathway because of the Pyracantha hedge which is about 6' thick and which provides a block from their house to the road. There is approximately 8' of space between the pavement and the Pyracantha which is currently used for occasional parking by the neighbors across the street. There is no room for a path next to the pavement or for them to actually move the path closer to the house. Mr. Burnett mentioned that Deerfield was a dead end street and has an active walking path. MOTION SECONDED, AMENDED AND PASSED: Motion by Commissioner Ellinger and seconded by Commissioner Cheng to approve application as conditioned by Staff and amended to include the Conditional Development Permit levels of development as follows: MDA 6,591 sq. ft and MFA 3,277 sq. ft. and a 5' IIB path to be constructed as close to the pavement as possible within the road right-of-way using a material similar to Neary Fine. This would be condition #6. AYES: Chairman Pahl, Commissioners Comiso, Elhnger, Schreiner, Stutz & Cheng NOES: None k ABSENT: Commissioner Sinunu Planning Commission Minutes APPROVED June 9, 1993 Page 6 This item will appear on the City Council consent calendar for June 16, 1993. Commissioner Stutz requested that the Planning Commission representative at the City Council meeting mention that she did feel more road right-of-way would be desirable. 5.2 LANDS OF FATEMI, 25691 La Lanne Court; A request for a Site Development Permit for a Major Addition, Pool, and Pool House. Being no questions for Staff; OPENED PUBLIC HEARING Lynn Miller, 1179 Prevost Street, San Jose, applicant's representative, stated that the applicant purchased the house over 2 years ago with the intent of increasing the size of the home. They have a lovely large lot and the house sits behind a very high hedge of oleanders. The applicants would like to make as much use of the lot as possible without maximizing the area. Commissioner Schreiner asked if they had considered rather than a circular driveway, one access point to this house. Ms. Miller stated the applicant has one access point presently which is a long driveway with hedges and shrubs all up and down the road. There is difficulty backing out of the driveway and there is a safety factor as the driveway is down hill with low visibility. The applicants are requesting a dual entrance for accessibility and safety. It was mentioned that the property across the road also had a circular driveway which may overlap. When Ms. Miller was asked if she felt this was a safety problem she stated that this property was on the uphill side and she did not feel it was a safety problem compared to the existing driveway condition. Commissioner Schreiner thought if the oleanders were cut down, there would not be a problem with the driveway as the oleanders were over the pavement edge of the road. Commissioner Schreiner further discussed the pool house and the addition being approximately 395 sq. ft. and the pool house not being used as a secondary dwelling. Mrs. Fatemi, 25691 La Lanne Court, applicant, discussed the removal of 2 pine trees and one 8" walnut tree to accommodate the addition to the front of the house. Also, one 30" pine tree will be removed in the rear yard to accommodate the proposed pool and decking area. Commissioner Ellinger asked Mrs. Fatemi if she had a substitute landscaping plan required by Condition 4 and she stated they were working on the plan. Commissioner Stutz questioned the road right-of-way. Mr. Peterson stated the half street width was 25, the total width was 50' The right-of-way policy states that for remodels and additions, if the majority of the dedication on the street exists at a certain width and it is above the minimum, it would not change. Planning Commission Minutes APPROVED June 9, 1993 Page 7 CLOSED PUBLIC HEARING Commissioner Ellinger asked if there were any requirements from the Pathway Committee. It was noted by Commissioner Stutz that the pathway on this street should be on the other side of the street. Commissioner Schreiner had concerns regarding the circular driveway and the 3 other circular driveways on this road resulting in too many access points. Chairman Pahl noted that there was not a policy against circular driveways. Commissioner Schreiner thought some of the problems were all the oleanders which reduced the visibility. Commissioner Comiso discussed the narrow pieces of property on La Lame Court; the increased pavement with a circular driveway; access to their front door and no area to turn around except by backing up which could be dangerous. Mr. Peterson stated the plan shows that the entrance to the garage appears to be from the side of the property. Usually a driveway design requires some type of turn around area so that when a vehicle is maneuvering, they have an area to back into similar to a hammer head design. Since a car on this driveway actually enters the garage from the side, it is a little more difficult to maneuver because they actually have to do a backing c up U turn. He further discussed the driveway, illustrating the area on the plan. Commissioner Ellinger agreed with both Chairman Pahl and Commissioner Schreiner and added he would personally be in favor of a circular driveway only when it was needed for safety. He would be opposed to a circular driveway if there was room for either a circular turn -around or adequate backing and turning facilities onto the property. In those cases, he would not want 2 driveway entrances on the street. If they could easily accomplish what Mr. Peterson described and it did not require cutting down the trees and could be accommodated on the property, he would suggest eliminating the southern entrance. The Planning Commission would appreciate an interpretation on a circular driveway policy from Council. MOTION SECONDED AND PASSED: Motion by Commissioner Stutz and seconded by Commission Cheng to approve the application as conditioned by Staff. AYES: Chairman Pahl, Commissioners Ellinger, Stutz, Cheng & Comiso NOES: Commissioner Schreiner ABSENT: Commissioner Sinunu This item will appear on the City Council consent calendar for June 16, 1993. Planning Commission Minutes APPROVED June 9, 1993 f� Page 8 6. NEW BUSINESS Commissioner Schreiner requested discussion of overhead lines along the streets and Town policy regarding same. Mr. Peterson stated when creating a new subdivision, all utilities are underground. For existing power lines, it is a very expensive endeavor to install underground power lines. He noted a few years ago there was an under grounding program, he thought along El Monte. The Town actually went in debt for the amount they were allotted when the under grounding was completed. Presently the Town has no available money for under grounding. 7.1 Discussion of the Circulation Element of the General Plan submitted by Commissioners Sinunu and Cheng. There was a request to continue this Element to the June 23, 1993 meeting in view of Commissioner Simmu's absence. A brief discussion regarding the Circulation Element involved page 32, 202.1, pathways, 206.3.d Moody Road, more detail perhaps using the Master Pathway Plan, major and minor arterial, updating speed limits listed on page 35 and identifying emergency roads under appendix. Commissioner Ellinger discussed the Safety Element in relation to the Circulation L. Element. In rewriting the Safety Element he will request the that emergency roads as identified by the Circulation Element be marked in a standardized way with a three ball reflector and uniformly locked with a standard locking system. A key for both the fire people and a separate neighborhood key would be provided. Commissioner Ellinger noted that he asked the Town for a report on the earthquake damage and has this in a tabular form. He asked if a map that would depict the general placement of the properties affected by the earthquake would be appropriate in the Safety Element. It was mentioned that Bill Ekern had provided the Commission with such a report. It was suggested Mr. Peterson contact Bill Ekern regarding a copy of this report. The Commission felt this report would be beneficial in the Safety Element. Commissioner Ellinger also discussed the sound walls by I-280 and noise readings taken before and after construction. 8. APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES OF MAY 26.1993 MOTION SECONDED AND PASSED: Motion by Commissioner Stutz, seconded by Commissioner Schreiner and passed by consensus to approve the minutes of May 26, 1993 with Commissioner Ellinger abstaining and Commissioner Simmu absent. Planning Commission Minutes APPROVED June 9, 1993 Page 9 9. REPORT FROM THE SITE DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE MEETING 9.1 LANDS OF LIU, 26751 Almaden Court; A request for a Site Development Permit for a Planting, Lighting, Fence and Gate Plan. Approved with conditions. 9.2 LANDS OF HANSEN, 25431 Adobe Lane; A request for a Site Development Permit for a Lighting Plan. Approved with conditions. 10. ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned by consensus at 8:50 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Lard Lonberger Planning Secretary