Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout11/10/1993APPROVED %w Minutes of a Regular Meeting Town of Los Altos Hills PLANNING COMMISSION Council cc: Cas: November 10, 1993,7:00 P.M. mbers, 26379 Fremont Road 1. ROLL CALL AND PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE Planning Commission meeting was called to order at 7:00 p.m. in the Council Chambers at Town Hall. Present: Chairman Comiso, Commissioners Schreiner, Sinunu, Stutz (arrived at 7:10 p.m.), Takamoto & Ellinger (arrived at 7:22 p.m.) Absent: Commissioner Cheng Staff: Linda Niles, Town Planner; Suzanne Davis, Assistant Planner; Lani Lonberger, Planning Secretary Chairman Comiso noted congratulations were in order for the City Manager Les Jones, his wife Jill and their new baby girl, Allison Rebecca Jones, born November 4th. 2. PRESENTATIONS FROM THE FLOOR 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. \�(Zrr 3. CONSENT CALEN 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. li Planning Commission Minutes APPROVED November 10, 1993 Page 2 4. REPORT FKQM TUE CITY COI TNCIL MEETING OF NOVEMBER 3 1993 4.1 Commissioner Schreiner reported the following items were discussed: street tree maintenance ordinance; date for the election of council members will be changed from June 1994 to November 1994; Lands of Jabbour approved with conditions and "high heels test' discussed relating to same; Lands of Yanez approved using the exact number of square feet for the new house as documented in the original house plans even though some of the square footage may not have permits on file . The variance for the new residence was denied. The redesign of the house will be brought back to Council for review. Commissioner Takamoto will be the Planning Commission representative for the November 17, 1993 City Council meeting. 5. PUBLIC HEARINGS 5.1 TOWN OF LOS ALTOS HILLS; Review of revised Pathways and Recreation Elements of the General Plan for forwarding to the City Council with a recommendation of adoption by Council. MOTION SECONDED AND PASSED: Motion by Chairman Comiso, seconded by Schreiner and passed by consensus to continue this item to November 30, 1993. �i 5.2 TOWN OF LOS ALTOS HILLS; Review of adoption of revised Household Hazardous Waste Element and Source Reduction and Recycling Element of the General Plan for forwarding to the City Council. MOTION SECONDED AND PASSED: Motion by Chairman Comiso, seconded by Schreiner and passed by consensus to continue this item to November 30, 1993. 5.3 TOWN OF LOS ALTOS HILLS: An ordinance of the Town of Los Altos Hills amending various sections of the Zoning and Site Development Ordinances: Zoning Ordinance. Section 10-1.208 - definition of Basement; b. Section 10-1.233 - definition of Floor Area; C. Section 10-1.227 - definition of Height, structure; d. Section 10-1.401 - Non -conforming Structures; and C. Section 10-1.504 - Height. N J Planning Commission Minutes APPROVED November 10, 1993 Page 3 Site Development Ordinance a. Article 7, Section 10-2.702 (b) and (e) - Conservation easement setbacks from creeks. MOTION SECONDED AND PASSED: Motion by Chairman Comiso, seconded by Schreiner and passed by consensus to continue this item to November 30, 1993. 5.4 LANDS OF LOHR, 24001 Oak Knoll Circle, Lot 23; A request for a Site Development Permit for a New Residence, Pool, Spa and Tennis Court. Staff had nothing further to add to the staff report. Commissioner Schreiner asked staff to explain when a lot was required to come in under a Conditional Development Permit when a human habitation setback was present, and why this lot did not require a CDP. Ms. Niles read the section of the ordinance relating to Conditional Development Permits approval and conditions. She noted the ordinance states "any lot significantly constrained by the human habitation setback for geologic" and it was her opinion that this lot was not significantly constrained because there was still a considerable amount of the lot remaining for development. Lots taking up all but a small portion or when you cannot get any development on the lot at all would be considered significantly constrained. The human habitation setback on lot 23 is only over less than a quarter of the lot. It was her determination that it was not a significant constraint. Steve Lohr, 586 Lagunita Drive, Stanford, applicant, stated the house was designed for a new buyer who enjoys tennis and would like the tennis court. This project is one of the smaller houses in the subdivision, just over 4,000 sq. ft. and because of the tennis court and pool the project is close to the maximum development area. They have ensured adequate room for a turn around for cars and for parking. They have planned stepping stones rather than gravel to help with the high heel rule. When siting the house, there were a number of factors to take into consideration. One was the existing neighbors, Mr. and Mrs. Davila who reside right above the project. Mr. Lohr met with the Davilas after the story poles were in place. Their house primarily looks out over lots 24 and 25. However they do have three accessory structures on the property; a garage, a storage cabin and a guest cottage. Between the storage cabin and the guest cottage the Davilas were pleased with how the ridgeline of the house affected them, because it was just high enough to block out their view of the freeway and decreases the exposure to the noise from the freeway. It was still low enough so they could see the bay and the east bay hills. Another factor was the lots on each side: lot 1 to the north west and lot 24 which is east of lot 23, both lots looking out over lot 24. They did not want to put the house towards the bottom of the lot which would significantly affect the views from both of those lots. He further discussed the view of the garage being blocked out by the way they positioned it and contoured the area. Planning Commission Minutes APPROVED November 10, 1993 Page 4 It was clarified that gravel or stepping stones do not count as development area and this lot was not conditioned to be a one story house. Commissioner Sinunu discussed the size of the tennis court. Mr. Lohr commented that the hardscape is reduced below tennis court size, 51 x 112, however, they would have a 4' cushion around that would be loose soil or grass so that the actual fence line would be 59 x 120. A standard tennis court is 60 x 120. The cut and fill for the tennis court was discussed; the upper end is cut and the lower end is a little fill. Commissioner Stutz suggested moving the pool to the south side of the property for sun. She felt a pool on the north side of the property would be in a shadow and would create a very cold pool. She also suggested moving the house to the left 6' to 7of elevation. If you move the entry into the house (492 line from the 496 line), they would have enough saved on the driveway to have a solid walkway to the house. She also suggested moving the house down 6' so there would be less of a question of whether they would obscure any view from the house above. Chairman Comiso asked what this would do to the garage. Commissioner Stutz felt it was hidden now by the use of contours and the same method could be used to hide the garage if it were moved to the left. Commissioner Schreiner also felt the house should be moved down. She had the opportunity of walking the property and the adjacent neighbor's property, the Davilas. From where she was standing, the story poles would definitely impact the Davilas house. She would support Commissioner Stuti suggestion to move the house down 7' or 8'. Mr. Lohr commented he had met with the Davilas and their two sons in September. They were happy with the location of the house because it blocked the freeway. The story poles were up at that time. Mr. Lohr also liked the suggestion of the pool on the south side of the property, however the clients requested the pool be located between the tennis court and the house to make one large entertainment area. Commissioner Ellinger asked what would be the reaction of Mr. Lohr and his client if this was continued for a design change along the suggested lines. Mr. Lohr had proposed locating the pool on the north side of the property for sun, however his clients still requested the pool on the south side. This was one of the reasons they put part of the house more towards the east line of the property for sun exposure. Commissioner Ellinger had concerns regarding the height impact and moving to the left was not just a case of shadowing the pool but was a little closer to the contour. CLOSED PUBLIC HEARING Commissioner Ellinger restated his opinion that Commissioner Stutz' suggestion was Q. nothing less than brilliant but this was not the forum for re -design. He confirmed that Planning Commission Minutes APPROVED November 10, 1993 Page 5 the project was within specifications, drainage had been adequately addressed, and the project did not create any hardship on neighbors. Commissioner Schreiner commented that the house was very close to the neighbor. The Guidelines Policy clearly indicates that the Town wants to protect off-site views of all the properties. She felt that putting the house down further would protect the views. Commissioner Stutz solution of moving it 6' and placing the pool in another area solves the problem. She was happy to see a reduction of floor area and she was more than willing to work with the applicant. She felt the combination of the setback and the height was a problem. Chairman Comiso commented that this house may appear close, however, this is why they have setbacks. This house is 60' away from the other house. If they needed 80' away for a reason she could see moving it down. She understood the request for keeping the tennis court and pool together. Commissioner Takamoto commented that Mr. Lohr had talked to the neighbor and he does not mind the house. He felt the house above had views more than just over this lot. He agreed with the location of the pool and tennis court. He was in favor of the design as submitted. Commissioner Sinunu was originally concerned when he saw the story poles with the views from the house above. The windows on the house that face toward this lot are small and few in number and appear to be predominately out -buildings. It did not appear to him that the house above looked over this lot for its main views. Chairman Comiso commented that when this subdivision was created the Council was very thorough reviewing each lot for view impacts. MOTION SECONDED AND PASSED: Motion by Commissioner Ellinger and seconded by Commissioner Sinunu to accept the application as proposed and conditioned by Staff. Mr. Lohr agreed with all conditions of approval. AYES: Chairman Comiso, Commissioners Stutz, Takamoto, Ellinger & Simmu NOES: Commissioner Schreiner ABSENT: Commissioner Cheng This item will appear on the City Council consent calendar on November 17, 1993. 5.5 LANDS OF HELLIWELL, 2240 Page Mill Road; A request for a Site Development Permit for a Major Addition. Staff requested this item be continued to the November 30th meeting. Planning Commission Minutes APPROVED November 10, 1993 Page 6 5.6 LANDS OF CARRIE, 25655 Fernhill Drive; A request for a Site Development Permit for a Major Addition and Remodel. Ms. Davis introduced this item stating there was a correction to the floor area figures for proposed and existing as they were inadvertently switched. Condition #11 requests the driveway be roughened where it crosses the path on Fernhill Drive, however it was discovered that the pathway did not actually cross the driveway. The pathway comes up to the area of the applicant's driveway then cuts over to Fernhill and the driveway is already in a roughened condition. She did not feel Condition #11 was necessary. Commissioner Schreiner asked Ms. Davis if, on a flag lot like this, do all the people on this road have an easement over that driveway and who is responsible for roughening the driveway. Ms. Davis stated that this was a portion of the applicant's lot, not an access. Commissioner Schreiner had previously asked Ms. Davis when this house was built as she was concerned with the amount of square footage that was being grandfathered in. She asked Ms. Davis to repeat the answer for the Commission. Ms. Davis stated that the house was constructed in 1959 and it appears that all work was done with permits. Chairman Comiso complimented Ms. Davis on her past and present staff reports. They were very well written. Commissioner Stutz questioned the statement "a deck on the second floor is currently counted as floor space because it has three walls and a roof. The roof over the deck will be removed so that it will no longer be considered floor area." She did not believe that when you have an exterior deck like the applicant has over the garage where you have put up glass on two ends for wind shelters, these are really walls. She felt a wall should support a roof or do something else. It has to do more than just be a single sheet of glass. She did not feel the roof was a real roof, rather something that was just there as a sun shade and obviously not water proof. She felt there were areas counted as floor area which were not floor area. Chairman Comiso questioned page 2, next to the last paragraph of the staff report regarding William Cotton's recommendations and asked if there had been further field inspections and geotechnical plan review. Ms. Davis stated that William Cotton and Associates wanted a little more information regarding the piers and some structural work which would be done for construction so they could be satisfied the second floor would be supported properly. Chairman Comiso wanted to make sure that the Cotton comments were adequately addressed. Ms. Niles referred to the October 29,1993 Cotton report on page 3, paragraph 2 "we recommend that the following items be satisfactorily addressed prior to issuance of grading or building permits". Staff reassured the Commission that all recommendations would be satisfied prior to the issuance of building permits Planning Commission Minutes APPROVED November 10, 1993 Page 7 Commissioner Schreiner noted that the staff recommended the owners be required to record a deed restriction regarding the MDA for the site being substantially higher than allowed by current Town standards. However she did not find this recommendation in the conditions of approval. Staff recommended this condition be added to the conditions of approval. OPENED PUBLIC HEARING Brian Carrie, 25655 Fernhill Drive, applicant, discussed upgrading the house and taking advantage of the views. They have kept the neighbors advised of the project and have their support. Commissioner Simmu commented that the plans were unclear as to where the patio areas would be removed in order to reduce the development area. Mr. Carrie discussed potential areas where harciscape could be removed although they have not come to a final decision. They will be removing the paving at the back of the lot behind the lawn (north side). Commissioner Ettinger noticed the single glazed window proposed for the master bathroom and asked if Mr. Carrie understood the heating issues. Mr. Carrie noted that it was a circular type window and there was no way to accomplish this with double glazing. They have had the plans subjected to heating or cooling environmental issues and it all computed out with the single glaze window which meets Title 24 requirements. Mr. Carrie noted the conditions of approval were acceptable. They are working with a geotechnical engineer to fulfill the requirements and recommendations. He was unclear regarding the deed restriction and asked what the implications would be for future sale. Ms. Davis explained the deed restriction would be to advise any future purchasers that the property was over the allowable MDA and they would not be able to expand the property further. Mr. Carrie had no problem with the added condition. CLOSED PUBLIC HEARING Chairman Comiso discussed comments regarding the staff possibly counting too much floor area. Ms. Niles commented that this was an issue that was reviewed over a year ago by a previous Planning Commissioner. The policy is to count as floor area anything that is enclosed on three sides and has a roof. There was part of the roof area that was solid. The deck area was a question to staff also. Commissioner Stutz felt the area in the front was a sun shade and not a roof. Ms. Niles noted it would be appreciated if the Planning Commission Minutes November 10, 1993 Page 8 APPROVED Planning Commission had recommendations as this was difficult for staff. The total area in question is 256 sq. ft. of floor and development area. Commissioner Ellinger asked if you reduced the numbers by 256 sq. ft. would it have a bearing on the recommended deed restriction. Commissioner Sinunu explained that if you do not count that area the net result would be that they would be adding 300 sq. ft. to the floor plan and would be harder to grandfather in. Commissioner Ellinger discussed the application as presented and felt staff had done the right thing taking a conservative approach which he felt was fine. Regarding the proposed addition, he felt it was an improvement and the Carrie's have checked with the neighbors and it seems to be acceptable. It is an improvement and it appears to be within the guidelines. He had no objections. MOTION SECONDED: Motion by Commissioner Sinunu and seconded by Commissioner Ellinger to approve the application as submitted adding an additional condition that the owners be required to record a deed restriction stating the maximum development area for the site was substantially higher than allowed by current Town standards. Ms. Davis noted that they did not require a planting plan because the site is fairly well screened. It may be necessary to plant a few trees in the back area where the paving is to be removed. She asked the Commission to add a condition that the staff look at the addition after it has been put in place to determine whether additional trees may be necessary in that area. Discussed ensued regarding the height and location of trees. It was acceptable to the maker of the motion to add this condition, however Commissioner Sinunu agreed with Mr. Carrie that his back yard goes out so far from the house that any slight vegetation going above the hillside would significantly alter his view. He did agree to bring this back for staff to review planting at rear of the lot if needed for mitigation for off site views but not blocking the property views. MOTION SECONDED, AMENDED AND PASSED: Motion by Commissioner Sinunu and seconded by Commissioner Ellinger to approve the application as submitted, adding an additional condition that the owners be required to record a deed restriction stating the maximum development area for the site was substantially higher than allowed by current Town standards and amended to add an additional condition stating "additional landscaping may be required to mitigate the second story addition after the addition is constructed. Staff will visit the site to determine whether any new trees or shrubs should be planted to fill in gaps on the site to mitigate it from off-site ` views Planning Commission Minutes APPROVED November 10, 1993 Page 9 AYES: Chairman Comiso, Commissioners Takamoto, Ellinger, Schreiner, Simmu & Stutz NOES: None ABSENT: Commissioner Cheng This item will appear on the City Council consent calendar on November 17,1993. Commissioner Stutz suggested using the word "mitigating" rather than screening in the future. 6. NEW BUSINESS 6.1 Schedule future discussion of the Town's Adopted Color Board. The Color Board will be reviewed at the November 30th meeting under old business. 6.2 LANDS OF CARSE, 27125 Taaffe; Review lighting plan. Ms. Davis introduced this item noting there was a statement in the staff report that there were some lights in the setback. She had spoken to the landscape architect and he indicated they were to be removed. The plan shows little triangles in the front setback which indicates the lights to be removed. The Planning Commission approved plans for landscape, hardscape, pool, spa and fence for the subject property on May 12, 1993 with a condition of approval requiring the lighting plan be returned for review. In reviewing the lighting plans, several concerns were discussed: cumulative impact of lights; may be too much light which would be seen as a cloud over the site; the number of lights being proposed and the impact to neighbors; views from the road; need for reduction in number of outdoor lights; large path lights were a concern; amount of wattage; need more information on what kind of lighting and cumulative effect, assurance that none of the sources of light would be visible off-site; total wattage proposed is 1606 watts; illuminating vegetation and not shining on light color wall surfaces. The conditions of approval were discussed and it was recommended to eliminate #1, change #2 by deleting the second sentence and adding an additional condition stating "the outdoor lights shall be down shielded and the source of illumination shall not be visible from off the site". Chairman Comiso commented on how beautiful the design would be and how hard the Carse's have worked on keeping this piece of property in wonderful condition. The Commission does need more information regarding the plan and what kind of lighting is being proposed. Ms. Niles suggested that the staff come back with the Commissioners concerns and what they feel should be the requirements for the lighting. The staff will then work Planning Commission Minutes November 10, 1993 Page 10 APPROVED with the applicant and the applicant's landscape architect to design a plan that meets the requirements. At that time it will be returned to the Commission. PASSED BY CONSENSUS: To continue this item to the November 30th meeting to review revised plan. It was suggested that the landscape architect be present. This will appear under Old Business. 7. OLD BUSINESS 7.1 Report from the Design Guidelines Subcommittee. The next Design Guidelines meeting is scheduled for November 17, 1993 at 8:30 p.m. 7.2 Circulation Element -Continued (to be re -scheduled by Staff). 7.3 Land Use Element -Continued to October 26,1993 at 5:30 p.m. 7.4 Conservation Element -October 26, 1993 at 5:30 p.m. 7.5 Noise and Scenic Highways Elements -November 9,1993 at 5:30 p.m. 7.6 Safety and Seismic Safety Elements -January 18, 1994 at 5:30 p.m. 7.7 Open Space Element -January 26, 1994 at 5:30 p.m. 8. APPROVAL OF MINUTES 8.1 Approval of the October 13,1993 Minutes. PASSED BY CONSENSUS: To approve the October 13, 1993 Minutes with the following changes: correct Commissioner Ellinger listed as absent and include time of arrival; page 8, second paragraph from the bottom, removing "be". Commissioners Schreiner and Simmu abstained. 8.2 Approval of the October 27, 1993 Minutes. PASSED BY CONSENSUS: To approve the October 27,1993 Minutes with the following changes: correct Commissioner Ellinger listed as absent and include time of arrival; correction to page 3, last paragraph, changing the word "building" to "land". Planning Commission Minutes APPROVED November 10, 1993 Page 11 16 9. REPORT FROM THE SITE DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE MEETING 9.1 LANDS OF CHOO,12581 Miraloma Way; A request for a Site Development Permit for relocation of pool, hardscape and landscape plan. Approved with conditions. Commissioner Stutz requested a report on the Site Development meeting. 10. ADIOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned by consensus at 9:10 p.m. Respectfully submitted, LaniLonberger Planning Secretary