Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout01/26/1994APPROVED Minutes of a Regular Meeting Town of Los Altos Hills PLANNING COMMISSION Wednesday, January 26,1994, 7:00 P.M. Council Chambers, 26379 Fremont Road cc: "sserres ifZD-74 1,31 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 Cheng, Ettinger, Schreiner, Stutz & Takamoto Absent: Commissioner Sinunu Staff: Jeff Peterson, City Engineer; Suzanne Davis, Assistant Planner; Lani Lonberger, Planning Secretary 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. None 3. CONSENTCALENDAR 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. 4. REPORT FROM THE CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF TANUARY 19,199 4.1 Chairman Comiso reported there were no public hearings on their agenda. Planning Commission Minutes APPROVED January 26, 1994 Page 2 5. PUBLIC HEARINGS 5.1 LANDS OF COELHO, 14141 Miranda Road; A request for a Site Development Permit for a New Residence. Ms. Davis noted there was a letter of support received from a neighbor. A copy was provided to the Commissioners. Commissioner Schreiner asked if they were approving the landscaping or outdoor lighting at this meeting. Ms. Davis noted the lighting was not included in this application. The landscaping has been shown because the applicant felt it was important to show they were planning to do extensive landscaping on the property. There has been a condition of approval recommended that the final landscape planting plan shall be reviewed by the Site Development Committee to make sure the proposed plantings are adequate to break up the view of the new residence from surrounding properties. Ms. Davis felt the landscape plan was very adequate with 77 trees being planted. They will look at it once the house is framed and under construction. Commissioner Schreiner noted in the staff report all existing structures are to be removed, which means nothing will be grandfathered. Ms. Davis agreed. 4 OPENED PUBLIC HEARING Eric Ingman, 25885 Fremont Road, neighbor, noted Mr. Coelho had been by twice to see them regarding the project. He was very pleased with the project, replacing a two story house with a two story house which will be a little lower on the lot. Shui Fong, 25889 Fremont Road neighbor down the hill, discussed drainage problems from run off. Since the house will be moved down closer to his house, he suggested they plant mature trees 40 inches apart around the property. He would like them planted with irrigation prior to construction for the Fongs privacy. He also discussed the height of the house being 27 feet. Chairman Comiso explained the height ordinance. Hugh Pearce, 14000 Miranda Road, neighbor, commented that he had reviewed the plans and found it to be a big improvement from the present house. He also felt the attention to landscaping was unique from any plan he has seen in Town. Commissioner Schreiner asked if he had any flooding problems in that area. Mr. Pierce noted that the only place he noticed any problem was the corner lot across from him. Mr. Pierce discussed the landscaping plan noting that unless there was some substantial objection to the landscaping plan, he would hope that it would be approved now instead of making them go through the process again. Commissioner Schreiner commented that this was the process used by the Town for every applicant. She wanted the applicant to realize that the landscaping and the outdoor lighting are not part of this application. 4W She hoped when they do come in, Mr. Pierce would attend to voice his support Planning Commission Minutes January 26, 1994 Page 3 APPROVED Commissioner Schreiner asked Mr. Peterson if there were any particular drainage problems on Miranda. He responded no particular problems. He discussed the drainage proposed which is what they encourage in Town. Penny Ingman, 25885 Fremont Road, neighbor, noted that Mr. Coelho has been extremely sensitive to the neighbors. Their neighbors, the Steels, who could not attend this meeting, viewed the impact on their backyard. They all felt that where Mr. Coelho has placed his house is as ideal as possible for the Steels' privacy. Mr. Coelho has agreed to plant large trees so when the swimming pool and tennis court eventually are constructed, the trees will be mature to provide privacy. She discussed some of Mr. Fong's landscaping which still needs to be put in which she felt would help his privacy. She further discussed drainage problems from the neighbors above which has effected their driveway. David Coelho, 14141 Miranda Road, discussed the design of the house and how it fits into the neighborhood. He values the rural environment. He tried to include sufficient landscaping around the house to help break any significant view of the house. He felt that over a period of time with landscaping, Mr. Fong will not be able to see the house at all. They tried to put the same type of mitigation along the sides of the lot, which would keep the open orchard feeling towards the bottom of the lot but also protect any kind of view the neighbors have so they keep the rustic look of the area. He also noted �I that he had several conversations with Mr. Fong regarding both the landscaping trees and drainage. He offered to cooperate with Mr. Fong to try to manage water flow off the property. Mr. Fong does have plans for putting in a ditch along the edge of his access road that would take run off down the Fremont Road. One thing he has offered to do was to work with Mr. Fong to route any water that might flow off his property into that ditch to get it away from Mr. Fong's house. He felt he was sensitive to Mr. Fong's view from his house. Commissioner Schreiner asked what were the length of the eaves and what were the colors proposed. The architect, Mr. Gast, responded the eaves are 18 inches and the color scheme will be dark gray roof with a lighter gray house with white trim. She asked if they would consider a lighter gray trim as the Town is trying to blend houses into the environment. What they want to see is the surrounding and have the house be a part of it. Mr. Coelho commented that the goal for the house was a French country look and there needs to be a little bit of detail on the windows and doors to achieve this. It is his intention to have a toned down house and not stand out. He appreciated Commissioner Schreiner's concern and they can look at the color of trim. David Gast, architect, was available to answer any concerns. He discussed the existing and proposed house, keeping it simple yet elegant and tied into the land. He further discussed breaking down the mass of the house. Planning Commission Minutes APPROVED January 26, 1994 Page 4 kCommissioner Ellinger noted that Mr. Fong would like trees planted before construction and Mr. Pierce would not like the Coelhos subject to another hearing for landscaping, even though it is part of the process. He asked Mr. Gast how he felt about planting trees prior to construction. Mr. Coelho felt the biggest concern he had was the issue of irrigation. There will be a lot of equipment around the lot and for him to get an adequate irrigation set up prior to the house being constructed would be a problem. Lisa Keyston, landscape architect, commented that if construction is starting this spring and summer, she would hesitate to put in mature plant material without some sort of irrigation. If they planted in the fall, they could take advantage of any rains and would be further along in getting water mains in. As far as growing the plant material faster, she noted it was in the nursery now and would not be growing any faster in the ground or still in the box. On the site, without irrigation, she would not want to go ahead with tree planting. Mr. Fong stated the reason for wanting the trees around the private road was because there is nothing between the two properties. If water is a problem, he already has a water line which the Coelhos are welcome to use. He felt that once construction starts, there will be a lot of trucks up and down the hill and he would not have any privacy. ( CLOSED PUBLIC HEARING Commissioner Schreiner felt there was care taken to place this house carefully on the lot. She liked the wing off to the side instead of side to side, hitting all the setbacks. She also liked the design of the garage doors not facing right on Miranda. Drainage was still a concern. What she heard from the neighbors was that the drainage problem was primarily from other neighbors landscaping and watering. She liked the plan and asked how to handle the landscaping. The applicant was asked if he had read the conditions of approval and if he was in agreement with them. Mr. Coelho responded yes. Commissioner Cheng had no problem with the design of the house. She asked what Mr. Coelho thought about Mr. Fong's offer regarding the landscape in the back. Mr. Coelho would like to think about the offer and speak to Mr. Fong. Mr. Coelho noted that all the trucks and equipment will be coming from the top of the lot. There is 300 plus feet of distance between the nearest truck that will ever be on the lot on the bottom portion. Commissioner Stutz asked Mr. Coelho if there was a well on the property. He responded that there was something that looks like an old well, however he was told it could not be resurrected. Commissioner Stutz discussed the landscaping plan. She felt that you really could not tell, even with story poles, how far the house will be seen. The story poles on this house i can be seen from two spots on Fremont Road and until the house is constructed, they do Planning Commission Minutes APPROVED January 26, 1994 Page 5 M not know what is required as far as trees. She felt that everyone should remember that the new house being built next to them is not the only one that could put in landscaping. The amount of landscaping proposed is tremendous and she would not like to see some plantings replanted because of damage due to construction. Commissioner Ettinger liked how the project was situated as far as views and light exposure. The project takes advantage of the site and is well balanced within the rest of the community. He agreed with Commissioner Stutz in that he did not feel they could require planting of trees now. Commissioner Takamoto also felt the house was well designed and planned. He liked the way the site has been used. He would not force the owner to plant any trees. This would be up to the applicant and Mr. Fong to discuss. Ms. Davis requested a change in wording from "prior to issuance of a building permit" to "prior to submittal of plans for building permits" (conditions 1, 3, 8, and 9). This was agreeable to the maker of the motion, the second and the applicant. MOTION SECONDED, AMENDED AND PASSED: Motion by Commissioner Takamoto, seconded by Commissioner Ellinger and amended to approve the site development permit for a new residence with recommended conditions of approval, E, changing the wording "prior to issuance of a building permit" to "prior to submittal of 4ar plans for building permits" (conditions 1, 3, 8, and 9). AYES: Chairman Comiso, Commissioners Stutz, Takamoto, Cheng, Ellinger & Schreiner NOES: None ABSENT: Commissioner Sinunu This item will appear on the City Council consent calendar February 2, 1994 Commissioner Ellinger noted that since there were several neighbors with concerns regarding drainage, he requested staff, when they inspect the drainage for this project, see what is causing the mud to flow down to the neighbors driveways and then contact the neighbors. Submittal of the landscaping plan was explained to the applicant at his request by Ms. Davis. Planning Commission Minutes APPROVED January 26, 1994 Page 6 taw 5.3 LANDS OF CODISPOTI/SCHROEDER, 14545 Manuella Road; A request for a Negative Declaration and proposed subdivision of a 2.95 acre parcel into 2lots (Assessors Parcel No. 175-21-101). It was noted that a letter had been received prior to the Planning Commission meeting from a neighbor, Mr. Gardner, detailing some concerns. A copy was provided to the applicants. Mr. Peterson discussed the three points pointed out in Mr. Gardner's letter. Erosion -he had already placed a condition of approval in the conditions to cover the drainage situation. Access to Scarff Way -the access (lot 1) is being taken out to Scarff Way. Mr. Peterson asked that the third concern regarding a single story development of the future house be discussed with the applicant. Commissioner Schreiner questioned the statement on page two, paragraph three regarding a non -access restriction that exists on the southern right-of-way line along Scarff Way. The non -access restriction will be automatically lifted with the dedication of street right-of-way, etc. She asked who put the restriction on and what right they have to take it off. Mr. Peterson commented that the restriction was put on at the time of completion of the parcel map that created Scarff Way and the lots to the north. Within the language of the owner's certificate, it states that upon dedication of right-of-way along that right-of-way line, the non -access restriction will be eliminated. It is automatic. Mr. Peterson explained the figure difference between 2.95 acre parcel originally noticed and 2.90 acre parcel listed in the staff report. When the tentative map first came in there was no dedication shown along Scarff Way. Staff informed the applicant's engineers that they would be requiring a dedication along there. The engineers made the changes to the numbers and the environmental documents did not reflect the change, since the Town Planner has been ill. OPENED PUBLIC HEARING Bill Kull, 20431 Stevens Creek Blvd., Cupertino, civil engineer, noted they have read the conditions of approval, requesting one modification to #3 which relates to the pathway easement along Scarff. There now exists a 20 foot pathway easement that is in a row of Eucalyptus trees. They believe they can build a path within that 20 foot easement. They would like the condition modified to read "this easement shall only be required if a pathway acceptable to the pathway committee and City Engineer cannot be constructed within the existing 20 foot pathway easement". Commissioner Stutz suggested, when locating the pathway, they either go along Scarff Way or along the other side of the Eucalyptus trees. Mr. Kull otherwise agreed with the conditions of approval as prepared. 4Ir Planning Commission Minutes APPROVED January 26, 1994 Page 7 Fran Codispoti, 14545 Manuella Road, applicant, commented that to protect their investment they are subdividing their property. Their intent is not to build on it or sell except in an emergency situation. They had started the landscaping of their home but ran into problems with the work. They have found another landscape architect not to re -design the work but to do the work properly so it can go out to bid. She had called all her neighbors within the immediate surrounding regarding the proposed subdivision and some of them had questions. Mrs. Codispoti commented that she had spoken to Carol Gottlieb who was in agreement with the modified condition presented by Bill Kull. Mr. Kull clarified the pathway easement location, stating it was a 20 foot wide pathway easement that is adjacent to Scarff Way and extends into the Eucalyptus tree area by 20 feet. They were not planning a straight path but one meant to meander through the Eucalyptus trees. Bob Aptekar, 26000 Scarff Way, neighbor, noted, from their perspective, what they see is bare pipes, a hill and no landscaping except for Eucalyptus trees. There is nothing separating them from the applicants' family house. He felt the Town had an opportunity to take the initiative to have them finish the landscaping and remove the eye sore prior to final subdivision. Ms. Davis noted that the landscaping was approved by the Site Development Committee in November, 1992. It was noted that there is a condition of approval requiring the landscaping approved in 1992 be completed within 30 days of the Tentative Map approval. Commissioner Ellinger asked Mr. Aptekar if he had a current concern with noise. He responded no. Commissioner Ellinger discussed the Negative Declaration study and asked what the long term increase of noise was due to. Mr. Peterson responded when you add more people there will be more noise, more cars, more activity. The long term will not be the same as construction. It is noise that is consistent with normal use of the property. Les Earnest, Co -Chair Pathway Committee 12769 Diane Drive, stated that there was no objection to the change to condition 3. CLOSED PUBLIC HEARING The Negative Declaration was discussed. Commissioner Schreiner had a problem with the mitigation measures as far as the findings were concerned. She did not feel they had been adequately addressed. Under attachment 2, findings for approval of the tentative parcel map, #4 and #5 were discussed. Under Initial Study, Appendix I (continued) she discussed #2, Water (b) ( and felt it should include standard drainage wording, such as: The drainage is adequately dispersed over the property so the run off is not increased to the Planning Commission Minutes APPROVED January 26, 1994 Page 8 neighboring property. Under Noise (#3), she felt a mitigation measure could be that the increase in noise with the addition of a new lot is compatible with the Town's rural atmosphere and consistent with the Town's standards. This noise is consistent with normal activity. As far as the light and glare was concerned, she did not know how to address this. It was suggested adding the normal condition for lighting. She wanted to show that these items have been mitigated. Mr. Peterson commented that impacts that are significant need to be mitigated. However, the Town Planner made a statement that, although these are impacts, they are not significant. Commissioner Stutz felt the Negative Declaration was marked much more critically then in the past. She was not sure there should have been any "YES" marks. In a future review, perhaps a third column is needed; not a "MAYBE" column but perhaps a "TEMPORARY' column. Ms. Davis felt this was a standard form and did not feel it could be changed. MOTION SECONDED AND PASSED: Motion by Commissioner Ellinger and seconded by Commissioner Cheng to approve the Negative Declaration. AYES: Chairman Comiso, Commissioners Takamoto, Cheng, Ellinger, Schreiner & Stutz NOES: None ABSENT: Commissioner Simmu The two lot subdivision was discussed. Commissioner Schreiner asked how the pathway easement condition was going to read. Mr. Peterson stated it should read "A five foot wide pathway easement shall be dedicated to the public on the south side of Scarff Way adjacent to the existing pathway easement to the satisfaction of the City Engineer if construction within the existing easement cannot be demonstrated to the pathway committee and City Engineer." Commissioner Schreiner questioned condition #18 and #19. Ms. Davis noted that this fee may not be applicable. The fish and game fee is a mandatory fee. There is not a creek on the property. Staff believes that because there is not a creek in close proximity, they may not have to pay this fee. She proposed adding to condition #19, "if applicable". Condition #18, payment of Park and Recreation fees, are normal fees for subdividing and calculated on the valuation of the property. Mr. Peterson will calculate the fee prior to recordation of the final map which will be in the subdivision agreement. Commissioner Schreiner asked, with regard to condition #14, if any bond was required on this landscape plan when the permit was issued. Ms. Davis stated originally they did not ask for a cash deposit and she did not know how this occurred. Commissioner Schreiner suggested requiring a bond for the landscaping. Planning Commission Minutes APPROVED January 26, 1994 Page 9 Mr. Kull commented that if the approval is at the tentative map stage and not at the parcel map stage there would not be a problem with the landscaping. Chairman Comiso suggested 60 days from approval of the tentative map. Mr. Kull requested modification of the condition for 60 days from City Council approval as this would give the applicants adequate time for completing the landscaping. Commissioner Stutz asked if they have 60 days after City Council approval, what happens if the landscaping is not completed. Mr. Peterson noted that as the condition is written, there is no recourse. Ms. Davis discussed the normal condition of approval regarding a landscape plan and the request for a deposit. 50% of the bond is returned following the date of inspection to ensure adequate maintenance and the remainder returned one year later if the plantings remain viable. Commissioner Schreiner clarified with Mr. Peterson that at this point the Planning Commission can require a bond. Mr. Peterson noted that it was his understanding that they can. This can be viewed as something that is being conditioned of this subdivision. The original landscape plan was passed around for the Commissions review of the ` proposed trees. Fran Codispoti thought the original landscape plan showed 41 trees going in. The comment then was they were planting more trees than were necessarily required. Bob Aptekar, noted his APN 175-03-045 on aerial map and discussed areas that needed trees. Ken Schroeder, applicant, stated they intend to begin the landscaping and they would agree to put up a bond. He only asked to make it as small as possible. RE -OPENED PUBLIC HEARING Margaret Barron, 14565 Manuella, would like to put a hold on the application until the landscaping is in. As it stands now, when the applicants enter their driveway, they look right into her bedrooms. There is no break between the two properties because their property is slightly above her property and built very close to the property line. They have planted redwoods, however they do not grow that fast. She also discussed the erosion problem on the easement and things of this nature should be addressed. She requested that the Planning Commission look into these two issues primarily before approval. She was not sure of the number of trees it would take to provide privacy along the driveway, blocking the view into her bedrooms. Planning Commission Minutes APPROVED January 26, 1994 Page 10 Judy Aptekar, 2600 Scarff Way, discussed the pathway, asking that it at least be hooked up so you do not have to walk in the mud to get to the path. She felt the proposed path serves no purpose. She did not feel they needed a path there as they walk in the street because there is no traffic. She does not want to walk under the Eucalyptus trees. Commissioner Schreiner mentioned that eventually the path will go into Esther Clark Park from Scarff Way. Chairman Comiso suggested in the future that staff and the pathway committee discuss pathway designs with neighbors. Commissioner Takamoto agreed. Commissioner Schreiner noted that the problem the pathway committee has is that they have to legally obtain easements one by one in order to further the pathway system. This takes a long time, sometimes as long as five to ten years. This is why you find little strips of paths on the road that do not lead anywhere The pathway committee has been very diligent in pursuing the easements so someday the pathway system will be completed. CLOSED PUBLIC HEARING Commissioner Schreiner discussed the landscaping and would like to request a bond. Further discussion ensued regarding the number of trees required and their location, the amount of the bond to be required, the original conditions of approval and the design of the pathway. The Commission discussed a $2,500 deposit based on 11 trees to be planted now. Commissioner Schreiner would like the applicant to plant all 41 trees, not just 11 trees. Commissioner Stutz agreed that all the trees should be planted. Commissioner Schreiner requested a $5,000 cash deposit. Commissioner Ellinger discussed condition #3. He and Mr. Peterson suggested wording for the first sentence, "The applicant, the City Engineer and the pathway committee shall devise a design and construct a five foot wide pathway which will connect from the south side of Scarff Way and lead to a connection to Esther Clark Park." "Should this team not be able to reach agreement, this application will be brought back to this Commission." The second sentence would be unchanged. Commissioner Schreiner felt that Mr. Peterson's wording was that they were going to try to put the path within the existing 20 foot easement. If they cannot, they will require the extra five feet which will then take it out and make it a viable path outside of the Eucalyptus trees. Mr. Peterson noted that they may not need a band of five feet added on. They may just need an area where the pathway goes around some trees. On looking at the tentative map there are some Eucalyptus trees that are right on the boundary of the easement line. They may need six or seven feet to get around them. Perhaps the conditions should say "not to exceed seven or eight feet" just to have a little breathing room. The intent is to just get around the outside; not for a wider easement. Planning Commission Minutes APPROVED January 26, 1994 Page 11 4 Commissioner Ettinger does not want the Planning Commission to design the pathway. He would like to leave it to the applicant, City Engineer and the pathway committee to reach that conclusion and put it where they need to. If they have to add words later on, let that committee add those words. He felt the pathway committee was very good at legal wording for granting an easement around trees, if needed. He did not want to try to design the pathway here with this motion. They can also take public input especially from experienced walkers like Judy, to put the path in the right place. Commissioner Ellinger asked if he needed wording to require the City to extend the path to Manuella to do the repair work. Chairman Comiso responded no. The Commission discussed the $2,500 bond for 11 trees; five trees by Scarff Lane and six trees by the driveway, 15 gallon, and changing the time period from 30 days to 60 days. Commissioner Schreiner commented she would not make this motion as 41 trees were required and it has been over a year. She does not want the applicant to feel all they have to put in is 11 trees. Chairman Comiso did not feel 41 trees were ever required but simply shown on the plan. It was noted that the plan was not red lined. Ms. Davis believed that most of the trees around the residence were required to try to break up the facade and soften it. None of the trees are clumped, they are not in groves but scattered in a perimeter circle around the house. Commissioner Stutz agreed with Commissioner Schreiner . By requiring the $2,500 �, bond and the 11 trees, this does not mean they do not have to complete their landscaping plan as originally agreed. The Commission further discussed the number of trees required and the amount of the bond. Mr. Kull noted the applicants are willing to post a bond or some other type of security in the amount of $5,000 to be in effect within the next three weeks prior to this project going to City Council for approval. By the time this goes to City Council, a bond will be in place or other cash security, in the amount of $5,000 to force the improvements of the landscaping. By the time this applicant goes to City Council this issue will not exist. The applicants have bids from their contractors. Their contractors are estimating about five months for completion of all landscaping required. Commissioner Schreiner suggested wording "a $5,000 bond shall be posted to insure the completion of the landscape plan that was approved November 10, 1992 for lot 2 to be completed in six months." Mr. Peterson suggested adding to the landscaping condition wording that would request starting to plant the trees in the areas of greatest concern (between the Barron property). Mrs. Codispoti noted that the trucks would be in that particular area. Although she does not mind watering six plants, she does not want to lose them. Chairman Comiso explained that they would extend the time as they needed it. She suggested a six month review. Planning Commission Minutes APPROVED January 26, 1994 Page 12 Commissioner Ellinger suggested keeping what the Commission has proposed so far, change the 30 days to six months, and there will be, at the discretion of staff, an additional six months extension to complete the landscaping as on-site conditions dictate. Half of the bond or deposit shall be returned when the plantings are installed, the remaining half of the bond will be returned one year later (the standard landscape bond requirement wording). The landscaping must be pursued with due diligence. For clarification, condition #14 should read, "All site development conditions of approval for the landscape plan approved on November 10, 1992 for the Codispoti/Schroeder residence shall be completed within six months of the Tentative Map approval, and all construction, grading and landscape debris shall be cleaned up and removed from the site. A bond of $5,000 shall be posted prior to the City Council approval to insure the completion of the landscape plan as submitted. Half of that bond will be returned when the plants are planted, with the remainder to be returned one year later if the plantings remain viable. This work must be done with due diligence and staff may make an extension as necessary should on-site conditions warrant..' MOTION SECONDED AND PASSED: Motion by Commissioner Ellinger and seconded by Commissioner Schreiner to approve the subdivision as conditioned with changes to #14 as previously stated, #19, adding "if applicable" and #3 "A five foot wide pathway easement shall be dedicated to public on the south side of Scarff Way adjacent to the 4 existing pathway easement to the satisfaction of the City Engineer if it cannot be demonstrated to the pathway committee and City Engineer that it cannot be constructed within the existing easement. The easement shall be kept clear of obstacles, vegetation and obstructions." Commissioner Takamoto stated he would be voting against the motion to remain consistent with his discussion of January 12, 1994. AYES: Chairman Comiso, Commissioners Cheng, Ellinger, Schreiner & Stutz NOES: Commissioner Takamoto ABSENT: Commissioner Sinunu This will appear on the City Council Public Hearing agenda February 16, 1994 Brie break at 9:25 p.m. Planning Commission Minutes January 26, 1994 Page 13 APPROVED 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 (continued from November 30, 1993 and January 12, 1994): Zoning Ordinance a. Section 10-1.208 - definition of Basement; (completed) 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 e. Section 10-1.504 - Height. Site Development Ordinance Article 7, Section 10-2.702 (b) and (e) - Conservation easement setbacks from creeks. OPENED PUBLIC HEARING ( Shannon Paboojian, 21625 Stevens Creek Blvd., Cupertino, provided a letter to the Commission regarding basements. He provided information regarding the definition of a basement, a first story, and a story according to the 1991 Uniform Building Code. He further discussed what is exempt from floor area calculations in the City of Saratoga, the City of Cupertino and the City of Los Gatos. Chairman Comiso suggested he forward a copy of his letter to the City Council. Definition of floor area was discussed. Chairman Comiso noted that they should give the City Council their suggestions and input and not try to re -write the ordinance. Commissioner Schreiner discussed living area, if less than seven feet, could still be constructed above ground and not count as floor area. The staff report noted "only storage type areas, not living areas, are allowed to be under seven feet in height according to the UBC" which she stated was not accurate. She quoted the UBC, Section 1207, a ceiling heights, a habitable space shall have ceiling height of not less than seven feet six inches for the following: kitchens, halls, bathrooms and toilet compartments can be seven feet, measured to the lowest projection of the ceiling." In other words, you can have an above ground structure that is seven feet or less, you are allowed to build a kitchen, a hall and bathroom. Commissioner Stutz and Schreiner agreed that they should count the kitchens, the hall ways and bathrooms in the floor space. Commissioner Schreiner asked if they wanted to allow exemption of anything seven 4 Planning Commission Minutes APPROVED January 26, 1994 Page 14 4 feet or under above ground. Commissioner Cheng felt this was not a good idea. They did not agree with the UBC. Commissioner Schreiner noted that what the Council is asking is that all space that is more than seven feet in height be counted as floor area. Therefore, anything under seven feet, no matter where it is, would not be counted. She asked for the Commission's comments. Commissioner Cheng stated that they do not agree if it is above ground. Commissioner Schreiner asked if they agree that they do not want this height limitation. It was agreed that they suggest to Council that anything above ground should be counted no matter the height. To strengthen the argument, they will say the UBC allows habitable space of kitchens, halls and bathrooms seven feet and under which they do not agree with. Commissioner Ettinger, in discussing heights, proposed a question; what if the room above grade was 20 feet tall. Presently, anything above 17 feet counts double. Commissioner Schreiner asked if they all agreed that anything above 17 feet counts double. It was noted that this is already an ordinance. Commissioner Cheng did not agree with this ordinance. Commissioner Stutz discussed the history of the ordinance and the changes. (� Commissioner Ettinger noted that the 17 feet did not bother him, however if you are `, going to make a stairway to go up to the second floor, the whole stairway ends up counting double and that is not a place you want to live in. It was bias against second story houses. He felt, since no one would go along with the idea of roof slopes being used to calculate the volume underneath the roof, we still live with the issue of bulk being bad and the way you deal with that is you cut down on height. Of course, that is a presumption that has been made which they have now proven mathematically is absolutely incorrect. There is a break even point depending on where your roof slope really is. In some lots, in particularly steep lots, or where lots have a lot of trees on them, you do far less damage to the property if you build a two story house in the trees. Further discussion ensued Commissioner Ettinger noted that the formula that sets out how many square feet you can build is strictly on a per acre basis and there is no roll off. If you have five acres you can build five times as much as on one acre. He felt at some stage they need to review the whole formula. Chairman Comiso noted that it was very important that the builders, the residents and prospective residents are informed prior to this process. Commissioner Schreiner asked if she would set a definite limitation. Chairman Comiso did not know. She felt this would really have to be looked at. She did not want anyone to feel that they would be penalized for having five acres of property. There would be a potential for not owning Planning Commission Minutes APPROVED January 26, 1994 Page 15 large acreage. The Town would lose open space and benefits from having one owner buying a larger piece of property. Commissioner Takamoto commented that any project given the right design can be made into a nice composition. He suggested giving the designer, architect, and owner free help in terms of coming up with a better project then left alone. He sees it as an advantage, providing a free service. Chairman Comiso discussed site analysis. Commissioner Takamoto felt there should be some type of special commitment to have those projects that are big concerns of the Town to have special attention and input as a contribution to them. Commissioner Ellinger suggested that on very large pieces of property, it is also reasonable to expect certain portions of it to be encumbered by open space easements or other such things. He felt that the formula should apply to the unencumbered portion of the property. This would set up two situations. First, you can build something that is appropriate to the usable portion of the lot and yet you have kept the open area; secondly, you have certainly discouraged subdivision. The Commission further discussed the slope density formula not being well understood by residents, a tough thing to measure and a difficult concept. However, if you say the dotted line on the property is encumbered, and you cannot build there, everyone can figure out how much area if left over. Then you can work out your formula on that basis. You can extend this concept to a larger project. Commissioner Ellinger suggested that the concept they have for building size and bulk is tied into the slope density formula, suggested formalizing it to bring in this concept of open spaces and encumbrances which are already part of the Town anyway. With a certain amount of mathematical homework the staff could figure out how to balance it. 'Everything built is grandfathered" would be the way you would set it up. To go forward, you would say "on the remaining properties that have not been built, this is what you can do." All the rest that have something built on their property would have a new formula to deal with if for an addition. This item will be continued to February 9, 1994. NEW BUSINESS Chairman Comiso noted that PG&E trucks are destroying the pathways. Staff will look into this and report back. The staff will also report back to the Commission regarding the story poles on Altamont Road by the Packard property. Ms. Davis noted the new state regulation requiring that all new swimming pools, spas and hot tubs have fences and locking gates is effective February 1, 1994. The Planning Commission and the City Council have planned a joint meeting March 30, 1994 at 5:30 p.m. Planning Commission Minutes APPROVED January 26, 1994 Page 16 7. OLD BUSINESS 7.1 Discussion of Interpretation of what qualifies as hardscape-continued. 7.2 Discussion of the Town's Adopted Color Board. 7.3 Report from the Design Guidelines Sub -Committee -It was noted that the committee has a rough draft of the pathway map for the handbook 7.4 General Plan Elements -Continued a. Path and Trail Element -Continued (to be re -scheduled by Staff). b. Land Use Element -Continued. C. Circulation Element -Continued (to be re -scheduled by Staff). d. Conservation Element -Continued. e. Scenic Highways Elements -Continued. 4, f. Noise Element -Continued to February 15, 1994 at 5:30 p.m. g Seismic Safety/Safety Elements -Continued to February 15, 1994 at 5:30 p.m. h. Open Space Element -Continued. 8. APPROVAL OF MINI TTES 8.1 Approval of the January 12, 1994 Minutes -Continued. 9. REPORT FROM THE SITE DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE MEETING None 10. ADTOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned by consensus at 10:50. Respectfully submitt d, Pani ee(, Planniningg Secretary ary