Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout04/13/1994APPROVED 4/27/94 4„ Minutes of a Regular Meeting Town of Los Altos Hills PLANNING COMMISSION Wednesday, April 13,1994, 7:00 p.m.. Council Chambers, 26379 Fremont Road cc: t.assecres n/-7% taf 1. BOT1. CALL AND PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE The Planning Commission meeting was called to order at 7:10 p.m. in the Council Chambers at Town Hall. Present: Chairman Comiso, Commissioners Cheng, Ettinger, Schreiner, Sinunu, Stutz & Takamoto Staff: Jeff Peterson, City Engineer; Linda S. Niles, Planning Director; Land Lonberger, Planning Secretary 4 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. 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. Planning Commission Minutes APPROVED 4/27/94 April 13,1994 Page 2 4. REPORT FROM THE Crry COUNCIL IL MEETING OF APRIL 6.1994 4.1 Commissioner Ellinger reported on the March 23rd meeting and the special meeting held April 12th regarding Lands of Vucinich and the drainage concerns discussed at the Planning Commission meeting. Commissioner Schreiner noted Lands of Twombly was approved with conditions. Other items discussed were: two applications requesting rebuilding of their homes demolished during the 1959 earthquake requesting re -building at previous non -conforming square footage and one applicant requesting fees to be waived; Palo Alto Country Club; and Council member Siegel's letter regarding non -conforming structures dated April 4, 1994 and a subcommittee being former (Siegel and Hubbard) to study this issue. 4.2 Planning Commission representative for April 20th will be Commissioner Schreiner. 5. PUBLICHEARINGS 5.1 LANDS OF CALVO, 26201 Elena Road; A request for a Site Development Permit for a Fence and Landscape Plan for a major addition/remodel approved October 14, 1992. Ms. Niles introduced this item noting that a letter from a neighbor, Mrs. Pao, had been received this day regarding the Calvo's fence on her property. She noted that she and Mr. Calvo had reached a verbal understanding and that the fence would be removed from her property line. OPENED PUBLIC HEARING Raymond Pao, 26131 Elena Road, neighbor, discussed the trees he had planted for screening. However, he felt his bedrooms would be overlooked by the Calvo's upstairs patio and asked for trees to be planted near the fence between his property and upper deck (east corner) over the front entrance for privacy. Paul Calvo, 26201 Elena Road, applicant, discussed the patios and noted they both look more toward Elena Road; not facing the Pao house at all. Mr. Calvo reiterated his conversation with Mrs. Pao regarding the removal of the part of the fence which is on her property. He also noted that the distance between the Pao windows to the patios in question are approximately 500-600 feet. Carol Gottlieb, Pathway Committee, discussed the very narrow area of the path on Elena Road by the telephone post. If there are any plantings in front of the fence in that area it will obstruct the path. It was clarified by Mr. Peterson that the concrete fence on Elena Road is out of the road right-of-way. She was concerned that the area by the C telephone post is very narrow and restricted. Any plantings in that area would force Planning Commission Minutes APPROVED 4/27/94 April 13,1994 Page 3 6 pedestrians to go onto the road and around the telephone post. Mr. Peterson noted the original conditions of approval for the residence relating to the pathway requested repairing the path, roughening the driveway and moving the mail box only. She requested an additional condition of approval regarding no plantings in front of the fence in the area which would obstruct the path. John Aldrich, landscape architect, submitted details of the proposed lights and agreed with the conditions of approval. The Commission discussed the proposed Poplar trees potential growth, problems with their roots, trees too close to the path, the location of the Pao's house in relationship to the plan, and drought tolerate trees. Commissioner Schreiner noted that she had spoken to the Environmental Design Committee regarding Poplar trees noting they are invasive, will block views and grow from 40 to 100 feet. Their suggestion was either Oak or Baywood Ash which grows to 40 feet. She discussed the placement of the trees in relationship to the path and the ordinance noting no planting or irrigation within five feet of a pathway. Commissioner Stutz commented that the Poplar trees are perhaps good on a low, flat lot but a tree 100 feet tall growing on top a slight ridge will cut the view of the people above it. Mr. Calvo noted that his wife is very allergic to Oaks. The Ash or Poplar trees are not a problem. Mr. Peterson noted that there had been dumping of soil in front of this property. He requested an additional condition of approval for the removal of the soil to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. This was an unauthorized dumping of an unknown source. The location of the soil is on each side of the driveway with the majority on the west. CLOSED PUBLIC HEARING Commissioner Stutz recommended additional conditions: (1) cyclone fencing be black or dark green, (2) no plantings outside the front wall on either side of the front driveway, (3) if trees proposed, should be 10 feet inside property line and not on the property line, (4) trees no higher than 40 feet tall along front of the street (naturally 40 feet, not topped at 40 feet), and (5) request three (3) good size trees planted off slope from the gazebo, 30-45 feet from the gazebo and be no higher than 60 feet. This will hide the gazebo from the freeway. Commissioner Ellinger was not in favor of Poplar trees or cyclone fences. Commissioner Schreiner discussed the Design Guidelines Handbook. Commissioner Ellinger did not feel there was a view to mitigate given the amount of distance between the two properties and the orientation of the property. Commissioner Schreiner questioned the color of the house. Vera Garces, daughter of L Mr. Calvo, noted the color of the house is called "Doe" which has been approved by Planning Commission Minutes APPROVED 4/27/94 April 13,1994 Page 4 staff. She also noted that the cyclone fence was installed years ago for security measures for the grandchildren from the neighbor's pool. MOTION SECONDED AND PASSED: Motion by Commissioner Ellinger and seconded by Commissioner Sinunu to approve the Site Development Permit for a fence and landscape plan as amended by Commissioner Stutz and Mr. Peterson with the recommended conditions of approval by staff. AYES: Chairman Comiso, Commissioners Takamoto, Cheng, Ellinger, Schreiner, Sinunu & Stutz NOES: None This item will appear on the City Council consent calendar April 20, 1994 5.2 LANDS OF ESBER,13430 Country Way; A request for a Site Development Permit for a Minor Addition to a residence and addition to an accessory building. Ms. Niles introduced this item stating that the Esbers had called regarding the request for the existing pathway on Country Way (#12) be upgraded to a Type IIB standard. There is not an existing pathway on Country Way anywhere, however she did check the Pathway Master Plan which has a designation for a local path on Country Way. The road appears to be totally developed to the cul-de-sac. There is a worthwhile path down at the bottom of the property which goes to Three Forks which staff is requesting an additional 10 feet of right-of-way dedication to an existing 10 feet which will allow for more leeway in meandering the path through the steep, densely vegetated area. She would Eke the Pathway Committee to comment on the pathway request on Country Way. It was clarified that Commissioner Ellinger could participate and vote on this project. Chairman Comiso discussed condition 3, the last sentence "The replacement tree(s) shall be equal size to the removed or damaged tree(s), as determined by the Planning Director." She suggested re -wording of the condition as a very old, tall tree could not be replace with equal size. Ms. Niles will correct the wording. Ms. Niles responded to a question regarding the height of the first floor and the height and space of the attic of the accessory structure. Ms. Niles noted that the height of the first floor is 10 feet and the attic above it at the center point is less than eight feet. It is a true attic. OPENED PUBLIC HEARING ( Ed Esber,13430 Country Way, discussed conditions of approval, one by one. Condition #1 was explained. He asked if "at this time' can be added to the condition. Ms. Niles Planning Commission Minutes APPROVED 4/27/94 April 13,1994 Page 5 fbr noted this would not be a problem. Condition #2 was also explained to his satisfaction. Condition #3 and #8 was explained. He discussed #11 regarding doubling the Town easement. There was no problem as long as it does not turn into a road. Ms. Niles noted this easement was not for vehicles. It is described as a "pathway easement" not a road way easement. He discussed #12 in that there is not a path up the street. The street is quite steep. The Commission felt a pathway committee member could explain this condition. Commissioner Ellinger discussed numerous past accidents on Country Way. Whatever is done will have to be for safety. Mr. Esber did not feel it would make any difference putting a path only in front of his house. This should be done as a group on Country Way. Carol Gottlieb, Pathway Committee, discussed the path and that it should be in the road right-of-way. She had wanted to investigate the subdivision improvements prior to the meeting because she thought they would find that there was probably a path along one side of the street. What the Town has done in the past is to allow people to plant and obstruct the pathways and the paths have disappeared. The Town has a strong commitment to paths by the Planning Commission and City Council. She felt that a pathway where it is steep gets the kids off the road and is safe for the residents who want to walk. She noted that they would like to see a IIB path. Chairman Comiso noted that they can only condition a path as projects come in. Mrs. Gottlieb commented that the road right-of-way whether it was every conditioned for a path or not can be used for a path. Chairman Comiso continued noting that the Master Pathway Plan indicates where to add a path as projects come in. Mr. Peterson noted that the subdivision plans show a Type lA path which is dirt on the other side of the street, on the right side going up the hill. It also shows a number of trees were removed for the construction of that path. This is across the street from the Esbers. The path is in the road right-of-way adjacent to the curb. Commissioner Stutz noted at the time of the subdivision the path was to go on the other side of the street but for some reason was put in on Mr. Esber's side. The path has slowly disappeared with people planting into it. Mr. Esber noted that both paths that come into the street come in on the other side of the street. That is probably why originally the path was on the other side of the street. Commissioner Ellinger discussed whether they have a viable easement for that path and if they do they can mandate that they go back and put it in and they do not have to bother Mr. Esber. If on the other hand they do not have a viable easement because it does not connect all the way through, then they would have to talk to Mr. Esber about continuing using some portion of his property for a path. Planning Commission Minutes APPROVED 4/27/94 April 13, 1994 Page 6 4W Mrs. Gottlieb felt it was very important to have a pathway or a pathway in the road right-of-way. Commissioner Ellinger agreed however he did not feel it was an issue for Mr. Esber. Mrs. Gottlieb felt they could ask Mr. Esber to clear the road right-of-way. Ms. Niles noted that there is a 40 foot road right-of-way at Mr. Esber's property. The path was originally to go on the other side of the street in the road right-of-way. CLOSED PUBLIC HEARING Commissioner Simmu noted that other than the path issue, the application seemed straight forward. Commissioner Stutz recommended deleting Condition 12. Commissioner Sinunu agreed with the recommendation. Mr. Peterson noted that looking at the Tract Map 6400 it does not show any pathway easement over a private road extension over Country Way. The Map does show a path on the other side of the street within the 40 foot right-of-way Commissioner Ellinger noted that in light of what they have discussed he was not opposed to the removal of #12. He would recommend signs to show the path on the other side. Commissioner Schreiner commented that she had a problem with deleting something of v this nature. She discussed the difficulty and tedious process to get these pathways put in throughout the Town. What they have done over the years is try to establish what side of the road to put the path and in this particular case, regardless of what the subdivision noted. This particular side lends itself to putting a pathway all the way up. Commissioner Ellinger did not understand the opposition. They have established that they have an easement for the path that extends not only on the area of ground on the street opposite the applicant but on the properties adjacent to that, it goes up and down the street. The only thing in question is whether it connects all the way up through where it crosses the fire road. There is a pathway easement the whole way. If they are not using it, why do they have to make a path on the other side of the street which goes back and forth like walking through a maze. It would serve no purpose. He is fully in support of the pathway committee but noted they should use what they have. Commissioner Stutz noted that if you ever constructed many paths in the wilderness or someplace where you will not have constant care of the path, you should always put it on the uphill side, because the downhill side sluffs off and the more you use it as a path, the more it will sluff off. When you go down around this corner from Esber's house down to Page Mill Road to the main part of the curve, there is no shoulder to put a path. N Planning Commission Minutes APPROVED 4/27/94 April 13,1994 Page 7 MOTION SECONDED AND PASSED: Motion by Commissioner Ellinger and seconded by Commissioner Takamoto with word modifications to conditions #1 (adding "at this time'), and #3 relating to replacement trees do not have to be of equal size to the removed or damaged trees and deleting condition #12. AYES: Commissioners Simmu, Takamoto, Cheng, Ellinger & Stutz NOES: Commissioner Schreiner ABSTAIN: Chairman Comiso Commissioner Schreiner noted that her NO vote was due to the fact that she felt a pathway should be constructed on this site. This item will appear on the City Council consent calendar April 20, 1994. 5.3 LANDS OF MACDONALD,11800 Francemont Road; A request for a Permit Modification to the Site Development Permit for a New Residence to add a Secondary Unit. Ms. Niles noted there was nothing further to add to the staff report. OPENED PUBLIC HEARING Curtis Folsom, 2444 Denevi Drive, San Jose, project designer, discussed the original plan. At that time it was indicated that a guest house would be constructed at a later date. The applicants have decided to add a maids quarters within the house instead of a detached guest house. This would be a simple structure. Commissioner Schreiner asked if there are any kitchen facilities in the pool house. Mr. Folsom responded no. The pool house is approximately 300 square feet. CLOSED PUBLIC HEARING Commissioner Stutz discussed the hip roof coming down over the maids quarters. The original plan had a break in the roof which helped the appearance. Mr. Folsom noted there were some constraints with the design and few options to change the look. He felt the Persimmon trees screened the area. Ms. Niles noted that the pool and pool house/cabana as shown on the front sheet is a little different than the engineering drawing. If the location has changed, staff will need to review those changes. Planning Commission Minutes APPROVED 4/27/94 April 13, 1994 Page 8 MOTION SECOND AND PASSED: Motion by Commissioner Schreiner and second by Commissioner Sinunu to approve the Permit Modification with the recommended conditions of approval. AYES: Chairman Comiso, Commissioners Takamoto, Cheng, Ellinger, Schreiner, Simmu & Stutz NOES: None This item will appear on the City Council consent calendar April 20, 1994. 5.4 LANDS OF INOUYE,14250 Miranda Road; A request for a Site Development Permit for a New Residence. Ms. Niles noted there was nothing further to add to the staff report. OPENED PUBLIC HEARING Don Becker, 14271 Miranda Road, neighbor across the street from this project, discussed views. His house is a two story with the living area on the second floor. The present Inouye home is a single story ranch home which will be replaced with a two story structure with a wide facade roof line. Presently they have a sliver of a view over the L existing roof line. The proposed structure will block that view. He felt the home violated two of the recommendations noted in the Design Guidelines Handbook. One of them being that the home tends to be wide at the narrow portion of the lot and it is built near the crest of the lot. He felt if the new home was built down the hill, there would not be a problem with the view. Another suggestion would be to have the roof line no higher than the existing home. He noted no one had consulted the neighbors. Mike McCullough, 14251 Miranda Road, neighbor. Mr. Becker's property is between his property and the applicant. He lives at the end of a very long driveway. He discussed two areas from his home where he can see the bay. One is the extreme north west corner and the other is from his kitchen sink which he felt was his best view. He also noted that he was not consulted regarding the construction. Commissioner Stutz asked how much higher they are from the project. Mr. McCullough felt they were fairly level. The existing house is at the crest. Mr. Becker's house does not block him. John Barksdale, 4151 Middlefield Road, Palo Alto, architect, noted the reason they did not contact anyone was that they conducted their own survey regarding views. Without going on the site, they thought Mr. Becker's view was primary to the left. He discussed the location and the constraints of the lot, designing to conform with the setbacks. There are two one story elements that come out towards the street. They placed the partial second story (40% of the total square footage) over the back part of the house putting it 102 feet from the street. He further discussed the design. They f have 26 feet of ridge line in the middle of the lot directly behind the existing trees that is Planning Commission Minutes APPROVED 4/27/94 April 13,1994 Page 9 4 approximately 120 feet from the street. This ridge line is 11 feet, the highest point above the existing ridgeline which is a one story house. They have lowered the first floor below that of the existing house, again trying to lower the project. They have pushed it to the brink of the slope. After receiving letters from three neighbors they visited their site, taking photographs. The neighbor on Wild Plum was concerned that large trees and the house would be placed too far down the hill. They had visited their site noting the house was behind a grove of trees. The project house is behind a grove of trees and adjacent to another grove of trees on the other side of the property. He sees about four feet of the ridge behind the trees only. If they pushed the house further down, it would start impacting his view. His view is similar to Mr. Becker's which is about 1800 unobstructed and this is the very border of the view on the left hand side. Mr. Becker has an extensive view from his living room that runs approximately 1500. You cannot see the story poles from Mr. Becker's living room. The second story will be completely behind the evergreen trees which are higher than the roof. As you go to the right of the second story, they felt they would be giving Mr. Becker an even better view because they are pulling in the first floor. He will now have a change to look beyond the house at a lower level where they have pulled it out of the setbacks. If you move over to his kitchen area, you start to see a portion of the second story roof, only the sloop hip portion. He felt the confusion might be that they put up one story pole on the right hand side of the highest point of the roof. They were unable to put one up on the left at the other extreme of the roof because of the swimming pool. What Mr. Barksdale felt the neighbors were looking at was the story pole that is extending above the house not really knowing what it is. If it were a two story house that filed the whole site and close to the road, then they might have a legitimate concern. He felt that once the house is build they will see there is really no impact on their view. They took a number of photographs of the McCullough's property which shows he only sees a small portion of this roof on the left hand side and goes behind the evergreen trees that are on Mr. Inouye's property. This will never open up and he still has the view to the right of the house and probably will have a better view after completion of the project because again they will pull this house out of the setbacks and he will be able to see to the right of the house. He felt Mr. McCullough had a view to the right of Mr. Inouye's property to the right of a large grove of Eucalyptus and Pine trees on the right side. He felt that they have done everything possible, with staff. It was not their intention to block any views. Commissioner Simmu noted that since Mr. Barksdale felt the views would be better and the neighbors felt the views would be impacted, there is a factual misunderstanding regarding views. Mr. Barksdale noted that they had submitted exhibits and staff contacted the neighbors asking them for a visit. They tried to visit the neighbors twice, unsuccessfully. They had ascertained the views and at that point were confounded as they assumed that it was a misunderstanding as to what the story poles meant. The neighbors were made aware that the drawings were available. The photographs were presented to the Commission taken two weeks ago. 4 Planning Commission Minutes APPROVED 4/27/94 April 13,1994 Page 10 4W Commissioner Ellinger noted that views are very sensitive which cannot be mitigated. He proposed a hypothetical question asking if at this particular location, if they said they could not go above 20 feet, what would he have to do to the design of the house as an architect. Mr. Barksdale commented that it would become a one story house. The roof ridge becomes higher because it has more area to cover. Therefore it gets to the point where it is very close to the two story height. They have done a variety of things to mitigate the fact that it is a two story. If they build a one story, it would not give them the square footage the clients wants if they kept the same footprint because they would lose the second floor. If they pushed it down the hill you would have a basement condition because you would still want to maintain some access to the front yard at that elevation and you could put a floor underneath. This would be a basement condition which is not what the client wants. Mr. Barksdale felt if they were blocking a significant portion of the views then they could entertain this. After looking at the views, they do not understand the complaints. In Mr. Becker's case, he will not see the house. He can see it if he moves over in the kitchen, but he will only see five feet of the second story. He will only see the tile roof. He will not see windows. He felt Mr. McCullough's situation was similar as what is blocking most of his house is not the deciduous trees between his property and Mr. Inouye's property but the evergreen trees that are on Mr. Inouye's property. Their intention is not to remove any trees therefore they do not feel there is any impact on the view. He did not think this would be fair to limit the development potential of this site for a very, very minor view considerations 4 given the views the neighbors have and the views they might get Commissioner Schreiner noted that she had visited both neighbors' properties. Presently they sort of see through the trees. What is going to happen is that they will be putting up a solid block. As she looked out the windows of the Becker property, he will see the whole area in front of him blocked off. The McCullough property will be worse. Now they see through the trees, the outline of the mountains and the twinkling lights. She discussed the Design Guidelines Handbook. She was not sure it was possible but this particular lot lends itself to be lengthwise, having it positioned lengthwise. She asked if that was a possibility. Mr. Barksdale discussed the difficulty in the request. She felt the two stories would impact the two properties. Mr. Barksdale agreed that the neighbors have real concerns. He discussed the effects of a basement area. You could do extensive grading and get light coming in on the down hill side of the house. However, you would have an underground situation on the other side which he called a half basement which is not as livable as room that have balanced light coming in on all sides. Possibly they could lower the first floor, keeping the garage were it is, lower the roof of the garage and lower the rest of the house approximately 2- 21/2 feet which cuts the amount of roof showing above the existing roof by about eight feet. If they did this with the same house design and lowered it then the second floor roof would not be any higher than a normal one story house built to today's standards. The disadvantage of lowering the house would be more grading. They were trying to 4 Planning Commission Minutes APPROVED 4/27/94 April 13,1994 Page 11 balance cut and fill. Mr. Inouye would have to step down from his garage down into his living area. They may have to export cut. Mr. McCullough read a letter from his wife which she discusses their views. She objected to the proposed two story house. He noted that the story pole is in the middle of the nicest view he has which is not very big. Mr. Becker noted that possibly they could work with the architect. He felt that he and Mr. McCullough both agreed that if there could be some extensive or creative tree pruning and removal of some of the existing situations on that lot, maybe they could come to some compromise they could both live with. CLOSED PUBLIC HEARING Commissioner Simmu discussed the small ridge along where the house is being built, views being very important and should be taken seriously. Commissioner Takamoto commented that assuming the photos and drawing are correct, he felt the house is well designed. In terms of blocking views, he agreed that if the total view is blocked by a house or other structures, that is a different story. If the photos and drawing are correct, there is a big view; this is just one of those views. It is not blocking the view of the total views. There are other views to look at. If you lower the house forward, pushing the house down hill, you will have the same problem of visibility from the people across on Wild Plum Lane. The way the house is designed now settles it right in those trees. There may be things you can do to thin out the trees as Mr. Becker mentioned. With the considerations of grading, pushing the house down in the terms of the slope and the visibility and also taking it out of those trees and pushing it down, with all those considerations, just looking at it as a professional given that problem with all those square feet, he felt he would have come up with a similar solution. He did not feel he could have put a one story on the lot. Commissioner Takamoto felt it was possible to drop the house 2 to 21 /2 as suggested would help but he was not sure it would be enough to satisfy the complaints regarding views. He would be willing to ask the applicant to drop the house a foot or two if this would resolve the view problem. However, he does not want to dictate the design. Commissioner Stutz noted that almost every other house in the area are two stories. The applicant is not asking for anything more than what is already in the area. The Commission further discussed the neighbors concerns with views, the architect's willingness to work with the neighbors; the impact of lowering the house two feet; and giving the applicant and neighbors time to work out a solution. Mr. Barksdale suggested a condition to lower the house and trim trees so they could move forward with the project. They understood the Town preferred not removing AW trees and preferred minimum grading. He understood the trees are very messy and he Planning Commission Minutes APPROVED 4/27/94 April 13,1994 Page 12 4 felt Mr. Inouye would be willing to lower the house and trim trees if agreeable with the neighbors and the building plans could reflect the changes. He discussed the design of the roof versus a flat roof. You will only see a small portion of the tile roof beyond what you can see now. Ms. Niles noted that 30 inches at a distance of between 400-500 feet away would only be one very thin line in a view. To take into consideration, as mentioned by Commissioner Takamoto, are they looking at a main, entire view, or are they looking at a portion of one of the views the two neighbors have? Mr. Becker noted that maybe they could work with the Inouye's just to trim the trees. Mr. Barksdale agreed to a continuance. MOTION SECONDED AND PASSED: Motion by Chairman Comiso and seconded by Commissioner Ellinger to continue the application to April 27th to allow the applicant's architect and two neighbors to discuss and find a compromise to their concerns regarding views. AYES: Chairman Comiso, Commissioners Schreiner, Sinunu, Stutz, Takamoto, Cheng & Ellinger 6 NOES: None Five minute break at 9:55 p.m. 5.4 LANDS OF DRAEGER, 27811 Lupine Road; A request for a Site Development Permit for a New Residence. Ms. Niles introduced this item noting one change to the staff report. Condition 15 requested dedication of an additional ten feet of right-of-way on Lupine Road. In further review they have noted that this side of the street is already dedicated 40 foot of right-of-way so they will not be asking for any dedication on this side of the road. Commissioner Schreiner asked for an explanation of calculation of floor area. Ms. Niles responded. Commissioner Ellinger noted appreciation for the great cover sheet. He did not feel the house was bulky. He felt the design minimized the bulk with a spectacular roof. Chairman Comiso noted that this would be a good example of minimizing bulk. OPENED PUBLIC HEARING C Glenn Dodds, 2893 El Camino Real, Redwood City, architect, discussed the country house design. 4 Planning Commission Minutes APPROVED 4/27/94 April 13,1994 Page 13 John Draeger, 27811 Lupine Road, applicant, noted that they are interested in a country house. He was pleased to hear that the dedication was not required which means they would be able to move the house forward the ten feet. He questioned condition #10 noting that they have submitted plans previously. He asked for some directing. Mr. Peterson explained the standard condition. He felt that they had an advantage living in the neighborhood for six years as there are no problems with the neighbors. Mr. Draeger commented that he supports the pathway request. He briefly discussed his driveway going straight out to Lupine and the possibility of his neighbor accessing off his driveway. He asked if he had the option to think about it. Chairman Comiso noted that he could always consider it. He would need to submit a modification to the plan if changes were made. CLOSED PUBLIC HEARING MOTION SECONDED AND PASSED: Motion by Commissioner Takamoto and seconded by Commissioner Cheng to approve the Site Development Permit for a new residence deleting condition #15 and noting the applicant can move the house forward ten feet if he chooses. AYES: Commissioners Schreiner, Simmu, Stutz, Takamoto, Cheng & Ellinger NOES: None ABSTAIN: Chairman Comiso For the record, Chairman Comiso noted that she had just returned from being out of the country and did not have an opportunity to visit Esber or Draeger. It is her policy not to vote on a project that she has not seen personally. This item will appear on the City Council consent calendar April 20,1994. 2 6.1 Schedule of Planning Commission Break (August). PASSED BY CONSENSUS: To cancel the August Planning Commission meetings. 7.1 Request for discussion of Interpretation of what qualifies as hardscape (Scruby) continued. Mr. Scruby, 7429 Saint Helena Hwy., Yountville, presented a display of the material. The discussion included: proper watering; no staining from the product, does perform 4W as a clay court; purpose of the drain by the court; could rain 1-2 inches before fully Planning Commission Minutes APPROVED 4/27/94 April 13,1994 Page 14 v saturated; court is engineered; other uses besides sports court; does not work for animals; 1000/6 stone product; uses water as a tool to hold and binding; product would not be good for a driveway; good for foot traffic area; needs maintenance; water on demand; the product being better than asphalt; floating surface independent of the ground; indestructible product; this product has been around since the 30's; product is much easier on the body. Ms. Niles noted that this surface court would probably not be allowed in the setback. The Commission appreciated the new information and Mr. Scruby's time. They agreed to digest the information presented and contact him at a later date. 7.2 General Plan Elements -Continued a. Land Use Element -Continued. b. Circulation Element -Continued. C. Conservation Element -Continued. d. Scenic Highways Elements -Continued. e. Noise Element -Continued. f. Seismic Safety/Safety Elements -Continued PASSED BY CONSENSUS: To continue the Seismic Safety/Safety Elements to May 9th 4 at 5:30 p.m. g. Open Space Element -Continued. t•. • u&" 8.1 Approval of the March 23,1994 Minutes. MOTION SECONDED AND PASSED BY CONSENSUS: Motion by Commissioner Stutz, seconded by Commissioner Schreiner and passed by consensus to approve the March 23, 1994 Minutes with Commissioner Cheng abstaining. 8.2 Approval of the March 30,1994 Joint Meeting Minutes. MOTION SECONDED AND PASSED BY CONSENSUS: Motion by Chairman Comiso, seconded by Commissioner Stutz and passed by consensus to approve the March 30, 1994 Minutes adding Commissioner Stutz to the list of Commissioners present. L. • ' • lel K • u ►I • uiu / - 1► None. Planning Commission Minutes APPROVED 4/27/94 April 13, 1994 Page 15 10. ADiOi JRNMENT The Planning Commission thanked Commissioner Simmu for all his hard work on the Commission and wished him well. The meeting was adjourned by consensus at 11:10 p.m. Respectfully �fu^�submitted, LariLonberger Planning Secretary 4 4