Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout04/27/1994Approved 6/22/94 6W Minutes of a Regular Meeting Town of Los Altos Hills PLANNING COMMISSION Wednesday, April 27,1994,7:00 P.M. Council Chambers, 26379 Fremont Road cc: t-assettes sts-y4 tol 1. ROLL AL AND PLEDG17 OF ALLEGIANCE Planning Commission meeting was called to order at 7:00 p.m. in the Council Chambers at Town Hall. Present: Vice -Chair Ellinger, Commissioners Cheng, Schreiner, Stutz & Takamoto Absent: Chairman Comiso Staff: Linda Niles, Planning Director; Jeff Peterson, City Engineer; 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. CONSENT CALENDAR 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 APRIL 20 1994 4.1 Commissioner Schreiner reported the following items were discussed: Lands of Esber was pulled from the Consent Calendar to discuss and determine if a path should be placed on the Esber side of County Way; Carol Gottlieb, Hazel Gibbson and Ann Bjorklund were appointed to the Joint Volunteers Awards Committee; the reorganization of the Council in June and Council member Siegel discussed the possibility of all Planning Commission approved items being held for two weeks instead of one week so full minutes of that meeting can be provided to the Council. This will be discussed further at the second City Council meeting in May. Planning Commission Minutes Approved 6/22/94 April 27,1994 Page 2 4 4.2 Planning Commission Representative for May 4th will be Commissioner Takamoto. PINERNMIFIFI-ENTOW 5.1 LANDS OF GALLIE/MUNYAK (246-93-ZP-SD),12804 Clausen Court; A request for a Site Development Permit for a New Residence (continued from February 23, 1994). Staff requested a continuance to allow the applicant to provide additional information regarding noise. 5.2 LANDS OF VUCLVICH (179 -93 -TM -ND -GD), 13826 Page Mill Road (located on Moon Lane); Negative Declaration and proposed subdivision of a 4.97 acre parcel into 3 lots (Assessors Parcel No. 182-08-021) (continued from March 23, 1994). Mr. Peterson introduced this item noting that at the previous meeting the application was continued to form a subcommittee to discuss the drainage concerns. The first meeting was held on April 12th which was attended by several residents, Town Staff, two Planning Commissioners and Council member Hubbard. At the meeting they again discussed various drainage problems in the Moon Lane area, the increase water flow over the years, and the existing energy dissipater at the end of the pipe leading down from Saddle Court that is plugged up and not working properly. There is also problems in the basin with continual landscape irrigation throughout the summer which is a common practice. Also discussed was disking which adds to the erosion and siltation problems which occur down stream. These items were identified at the first meeting which was adjourned, scheduling another subcommittee meeting for April 26th. At that meeting they focused on how the problems could be solved. The applicant's engineer had presented several plans. Mr. Peterson discussed the possible costs of two of the solutions ranging from approximately $50,000 to $100,000, not including engineering costs. At that meeting, the group agreed they needed more information. There was some agreement by the residents regarding the Town having a significant responsibility in principle in correcting the problem and should have a significant contribution in correcting the problem. The residents attending the meeting were open to actually contributing financially to the problem. They just felt the Town should take the bigger share. There also seemed to be a consensus that the drainage problem should be fixed either before the property is subdivided or as part of the subdivision improvement so that there would not be further development without drainage solutions. There was a consensus that the improvements be rural. Finally the group wanted more specific cost figures so that in discussing the potential of all the people in the basin sharing the costs, they would know what order magnitude they were dealing with. There were questions asked as to what was the Towns legal responsibility in correcting the problem. There was a request for the City Attorney to respond to this question. There were also questions surrounding the original Saddle Mountain subdivision and the assessment for drainage. They would like to investigate what the assessment was for so the group could determine how that would effect any amount someone might pay now. Unfortunately, there was not a recommendation for a solution. Mr. Peterson felt the group had been working very hard for a solution. There was an agreement that everyone that contributed water to this basin would be involved in the Planning Commission Minutes Approved 6/22/94 April 27,1994 Page 3 ksolution. Commissioner Schreiner asked as part of the Vucinich subdivision, how they could condition other people to solve the Moon Lane concerns. Mr. Peterson noted that they could not condition other people to do improvements unless there is a consensus that an assessment district is the best approach. He further discussed the assessment district process; identifying everyone who would belong; the public road right-of-way and Town maintained roads; and the Towns unknown legal responsibility. Mr. Peterson requested direction from the Planning Commission. The options could be either to make a decision, continue the application or deny the application. He noted that the applicant's engineer was prepared to discuss an additional solution at this meeting which had not been discussed previously. Ms. Niles noted that the discussion includes a recommended Certification of the Negative Declaration and the recommended approval of the Tentative Parcel Map with findings and conditions. They are both noticed public hearings that need to be opened, discussed and comments taken. The environmental analysis was strictly on the impacts of this project as designed on the site and the surrounding area. The Planning Commission is also looking at the addition of two lots. The Commission needs to keep in mind is that there is already a significant negative situation in the area regarding drainage. The contribution of this particular project has been discussed in the Negative Declaration and has been determined by staff that the size of the impacts are not significant. She noted that there was a letter submitted at 4:00 p.m. this date from Mr. Ewald regarding some of the discussions addressed in the Negative Declaration. The Negative Declaration is simply a statement of all the issues, of all the impacts that could be related to this project and an indication as to whether they will be significant, moderate or none at all. Also, what would be an appropriate mitigation that might be considered in approving of the map. The environmental Negative Declaration is simply a document that points out all of the issues. Some of the discussion noted in Mr. Ewald's letter indicates that it may be appropriate to change some of the answers. She still did not feel that any of the impacts from this project are in themselves significantly negative. The Commission agreed to open the public hearing to discuss the Negative Declaration and then once they have reached a conclusion they would move to the discussion of the tentative map. At 8:10 they will decide whether to continue with the discussion or stop to hear the other public hearing items and return to this application. OPENED PUBLIC HEARING Mr. Ewald, 13830 Page Mill Road, neighbor and author of the letter presented to the Planning Commission. He discussed his letter and his thoughts regarding the answers in the Negative Declaration specifically the environmental checklist report of May 23rd and items in part 11 Environmental Impact; section 31, 21. a., b., and d. He was pleased with the subcommittee meetings so far and felt they needed another meeting with more attendance. He felt they needed a little more information as to how they would identify each persons share of the responsibility and cost. Also, how they might go about making it happen. James Dixon, architect for Morley Young, discussed the drainage problems in the area; the streets contributing to the run off in that basin; the Moon Lane steep slope exposed pipe; not Planning Commission Minutes Approved 6/22/94 April 27, 1994 Page 4 kknowing if a solution would be that each owner took responsibility for the water on their land; flushing out the dissipater; and the cost of the Young's dissipater being between $20,000-$30,000. He felt much of the drainage situation could be handled by responsible on- site runoff management. Dru Anderson, 27820 Saddle Court, discussed her neighbors concerns; the Town owned storm drain, her house not contributing to the runoff; identifying the contribution of the Town problem regarding the storm drain and assessing that against what perhaps needs to be just improvements as sites become available or what improvements may be needed for existing sites. She also felt it was time to address the Town's responsibility and cost. Alan Huntzinger, design engineer for Mr. Vucinich, discussed the subcommittee meeting of the 26th. He felt they had come up with some solutions. He provided the Commission with a copy of a Plan 4 which he felt was a consensus of their progress. He discussed the Hanley, Bavor, Ewald and Chown properties. There was also a consensus from the neighbors that they felt the Town was a significant contributory participant of the basin and they would like to see some substantial dollar amount from the Town to help defray the costs. He did get the impression that the neighbors were willing to contribute the remainder of the money. Equal shares have not been determined (what is a fair share). He further discussed Plan 3 which was total pipeline which did not have a rural feeling. He noted that the Vucinich's were willing to participate in an assessment district. He also discussed ultimate development in 4 the basin being 20 participants contributing to the run-off if all properties were subdivided. Presently there are 13 separate property owners. Mr. Huntzinger further discussed his Plan 5 which included building retention basins on the Vucinich property at each driveway, providing a smaller pipeline. They would also retain 100% of their own water, possibly retaining some of the water running down from the Chown property on a temporary basis and a proposal to put in two check dams, and two frog ponds to retain some water. This stops any contribution from them to the lower properties. Mr. Huntzinger provided the Commission with a copy of the plan. Ms. Niles discussed Plan 5 noting that it was not a mitigation for the Negative Declaration. It is a discussion of mitigation measures that would resolve an issue pointed out in the Negative Declaration so the mitigation is a condition of the approval of the map as a recommendation from the Negative Declaration analysis. Tim Chown, 13822 Page Mill Road, neighbor, discussed the previous night's subcommittee meeting. He felt if they did not bring up the drainage concerns, the Town would do nothing about the problem involving an approval 20 years ago. At that time the Town approved something that was completed inadequately and incorrectly. They are trying to make the city recognize it now. The Planning Commission at 8:10 p.m. agreed by consensus to continue the public hearing ( on this item to the end of the remaining public hearing items. V The Planning Commission returned to the Negative Declaration Public Hearing discussion which remained open. Planning Commission Minutes Approved 6/22/94 April 27,1994 Page 5 4 James Dixon, Mr. Young's architect, recommended denial of the subdivision for two major points: (1) aesthetics, and (2) location of the new house sites having technical problems with known drainage basin problems. He commented on legal concerns with drainage regarding Mr. Young being up the hill from the project. He further discussed erosion problems. He did not feel moving the two proposed houses down the hill would help. Mr. Peterson commented that the Young lot is above lots 2 and 3 of the Vucinich subdivision. Regarding the slope, the two proposed house sites on lots 2 and 3 are in an area of steepness that is roughly equal to the Young lot. Tim Chown, 13822 Page Mill Road, discussed the four foot widening of the road, the fire truck turn around, and another entrance onto a steep hillside. Dru Anderson, 27820 Saddle Court, discussed the possibility of limiting and/or conditioning the size or height and looking at the whole Moon Lane basin and the rural area. Alan Huntzinger further discussed the project noting that the house design would be hopefully discussed with the neighbors by the architect of the project, preserving the rural character with the conservation easement proposed. He also felt they could control their drainage (Plan 5) and Mr. Vucinich is willing to work toward the drainage concerns. 4 Mr. Peterson commented that the code specifies that the Planning Commission can set and the Council confirm the activities that can take place in a conservation easement. Commissioner Schreiner discussed requiring a 10 foot dedication whenever a property has come in, in order to widen the road and get a 30 foot right-of-way on either side for a 60 foot road. She did not feel the Town had any intention of putting in that type of road but this is a policy. She further noted that the title reports that she has seen indicates that each one of the residents on Moon Lane has the right of ingress/egress and the right to have public utility easements. They do not own the road. The problem will come up in the future when the Town says they want to pick up the whole road and make it public. She asked where the Town has the right to pick up the 40 foot width road that is there now that does not belong to the residents. Mr. Huntzinger commented that there were three possibilities: (1) they can take the position that the property owners in common do own the road and they can dedicate whatever right they have to a third party if they so desire; or (2) the land does belong to Mr. Moon; or (3) if the Town wants to make this a public street they can use the eminent domain process. CLOSED PUBLIC HEARING The Planning Commission discussed the Negative Declaration options; either accepting it with changes as presented by Mr. Ewald, not accepting the Negative Declaration, approve as is, or continue. Planning Commission Minutes Approved 6/22/94 April 27,1994 ( Page 6 Ms. Niles indicated that most of the comments made in writing by Mr. Ewald were, in staffs opinion, appropriate to add as discussion in the Negative Declaration. Mentioning all of the existing situations in more detail was beneficial. If the Planning Commission agrees with Mr. Ewald's suggestions, they should direct staff to revise the Negative Declaration to include the expanded discussion and anything else they felt appropriate. They can then deem that the Negative Declaration was an adequate environmental analysis and could be certified. This is not saying that the Negative Declaration is approving a project or saying a project is good or bad. It is only identifying all of the issues and possible mitigation. MOTION SECOND, AMENDED AND PASSED: Motion by Commissioner Takamoto and seconded by Commissioner Stutz to ratify the Negative Declaration as presented by staff with the additions presented by Mr. Ewald in his letter of April 27, 1994 and amended requesting staff to return with the revised wording in the Negative Declaration for consideration of ratification and to review their recommendation as to the ability to mitigate. AYES: Vice -Chair Ellinger, Commissioners Cheng, Schreiner, Stutz & Takamoto NOES: None ABSENT: Chairman Comiso MOTION SECOND AND PASSED BY CONSENSUS: Motion by Commissioner Cheng, second by Commissioner Takamoto and passed by consensus to continue the Tentative Parcel Map to May 11, 1994. 5.3 LANDS OF INOUYE (13-94-Z.P-SD), 14250 Miranda Road; A request for a Site Development Permit for a New Residence (continued from April 13, 1994). Ms. Niles had nothing further to add to the staff report, however she noted a copy of a letter from the Beckers and the McCulloughs had been received on the 26th which was provided to the Commission. One of the requests noted in the letter was to remove the existing mature vegetation on the north and south side of the existing house. It is not the Town's policy to remove existing mature vegetation that assists in mitigation screening. If there is a way that some of the vegetation can be removed and still retain some mitigation screening for other areas including this area, this may be something that the Planning Commission may want to consider. Total or significant removal of those trees may change the staffs recommendations and review of the project as designed. OPENED PUBLIC HEARING Mr. McCullough, 14251 Miranda Road, would prefer not approving construction of a two story house on the peak of the ridge that blocks half of their view. He discussed standing to lose a view to the far side the hills that he enjoys from his dining room table in the winter. If the house is a probability, he asked that they at least cut down the trees to free up some additional view. He also discussed the possibility of the lot next door coming in for development, again reducing his view. He noted the discussion Planning Commission Minutes Approved 6/22/94 April 27,1994 Page 7 kregarding lowering the house 18 inches would not significantly effect the view, however he did appreciate the suggestion. Commissioner Stutz asked Mr. McCullough if his house was 500-600 feet away from the proposed house. He responded yes. She noted that when you are back 500-600 feet this was a small section of his panoramic view from his house. She noted that he could have removed the pine tree long ago at the entrance to his driveway. He commented that he did not know it was his tree until last week. In answer to her question, Mr. McCullough responded if the other trees are removed, he will remove the pine tree anyway, if there are no objections. John Barksdale, project architect, discussed his meeting with the two neighbors. It was his understanding that both parties would like them to remove all the large trees and Mr. McCullough would like the house lowered 18 inches. He felt the tree causing the most damage to Mr. McCullough's view was one of the three eucalyptus trees on the right side of the property (on Dr. Inouye's property) which they were willing to remove. The eucalyptus tree is very dense with leaves coming down quite low. If Mr. McCullough removes his pine tree he would be able to see right through these trees with some branches trimmed. The part of the house which is encroaching into his view is peaking out behind the pine trees in front of the house. Mr. Becker would like those pine trees removed not because they are hurting his view now but may in the future. Mr. Becker would prefer they keep the three deciduous trees to the right. Mr. Becker's biggest concern was with the trees on the left. They have grown over the years and one of them is leaning precariously over the proposed house and one is leaning into and hanging over the street, looking like it is ready to take out a power pole. They would not have a problem removing those trees as they do not look well and they have become a nuisance. Mr. Barksdale discussed his letter which was included in the staff report. Again he noted that they were not trying to over design something knowing they would have to compromise. They have studied the situation as far as what design would have the least impact, the least amount of disruption to the site, what neighbor's view were effected and the owner's own requirements, in that order. It is very important they keep the first floor on the same level and they do not have any level changes. They are pushing the house down below where the existing house is now and they are willing to remove the critical trees, if approved by the Town. CLOSED PUBLIC HEARING Commissioner Stutz was not in favor of removing all of the trees especially since they will help mitigate the new house. She suggested that the large pine trees on the north side of the property on the side of the new house all be taken down. They are in poor condition, overly mature and will not improve no matter what is done to them. She would also like to see the group of three pine trees (two 30 inch and one 20 inch ) that 4 are along the north west corner (the left side of the house that is by the street) which are br in poor condition and are not necessary removed. The Eucalyptus trees which are between these two groups of pine trees are in fairly good condition, do not appear to grow very high, they have many trunks on them and suggested taking out two-thirds of Planning Commission Minutes Approved 6/22/94 April 27, 1994 Page 8 4 them and let the rest stay for mitigation. When you come around to the front of the property there are seven pines across the front and two ornamental ones. There are two that were planted to block an old driveway entrance off the street and they are not doing very well nor will they continue to do well. She would keep the three pine trees beyond that point between those from the old driveway and the present driveway and the two -three ornamental trees there which will help protect the front of the house. She also discussed the two Eucalyptus trees said to be on the neighbor's. She noted that the middle Eucalyptus tree was on the neighbor's property and the first Eucalyptus tree is in the road right-of-way. As you enter from the old driveway she did not like the way the dirt has built up with the Eucalyptus tree which hides the view from Miranda creating an entry problem. She suggested as a condition of this property that they request that the one Eucalyptus tree in the road right-of-way be removed. The Juniper on the back side might have to be removed, however the resident may want to try to keep it. She would also like to see the house lowered 18 inches which she felt was a wonderful compromise. Commissioner Schreiner agreed with Commissioner Stutz. Commissioner Stutz noted that the pathway committee asked for a path along Miranda. She asked that they continue this condition until the Council has agreed that Miranda shall have paths on both sides of the street. She felt the main path was on the other side of the road. There are no paths on this side of the road and therefore she would object to a path being installed. Carol Gottlieb, Co -Chair, Pathway Committee, discussed the pathway request. If you drive down Miranda you will notice that the path wanders from side to side and it is a very narrow road. On many mornings there are a group of mothers with strollers at that corner. She felt it was a main artery to Bullis School for young children. Because the road is so narrow, she felt there was a need for a path on both sides so the mothers and children do not have to cross back and forth. This street is heavily used by parents and walkers. The road right-of-way should be cleared therefore all road right-of-ways on both sides of the road should be free and could be used as a path. Commissioner Stutz felt they should ask the Council if this is a road they should have two path on before they accept this condition. She suggested striking the condition (#12) and give staff permission to re -instate the condition if the City Council agrees it is needed. Commissioner Stutz asked the staff if her suggestion regarding the removal and thinning of trees needs to be a condition. Ms. Niles responded yes. If the Commission concurs with the recommendations by Commissioner Stutz she would like staff to be able to go out in the field with Commissioner Stutz and the applicant to make sure that those are not trees that are significant mitigation screening for properties to the north or the east and there is no problem removing them. If it is not a concern, then staff will write it up as suggested. She would like this as a condition, checking on the specifics before it goes to Council. Ms. Niles noted that the trees that are in the road right-of-way in front of this particular project can be requested by the Planning Commission that the applicant remove if they felt they were not mitigation screening that is appropriate from some other view. Any of the trees in the road right-of-way that are not along this Planning Commission Minutes Approved 6/22/94 April 27,1994 Page 9 4 project frontage should not be required to be removed by the applicant. She felt this included the large Eucalyptus on the south of the driveway which is in front of another persons project frontage. Mr. Peterson discussed the Town ordinance relating to tree maintenance. He asked if the Commission approves deletion of the construction of the Type IIB pathway it should be replaced with a condition for an in -lieu fee. In the past the staff has not been conditioning it, however they have been taking care of this administratively. In this case he felt it would be better to advise the applicant now. The cost is listed in the Town fee schedule relating to linear feet of frontage. Commissioner Schreiner asked Mrs. Gottlieb if Miranda was a major road. A major road would require a pathway on both sides of the road according to the General Plan. Mrs. Gottlieb responded that is was a local road, not a major road. Commissioner Stutz again went over her suggestions regarding the trees to be removed and kept as Ms. Niles redlined them on the plan. Commissioner Takamoto discussed lowering the house 18 inches which he felt would not make a difference, however it was a good compromise between the owner and the L neighbors. He has respect for people's views who are already living in the area, `, however he did have a problem in this case. He further discussed the pathway request noting that in some cases they can be dangerous especially when you go from side to side across a street. Commissioner Schreiner commented that the policy of the Town Council was been when enough segments on a street is completed and identified by the pathway committee, the Town will go in to finish the remainder of the path. Mr. Barksdale discussed conditions 9 and 12. He suggested the driveway be roughened so if a pathway is requested the hard part is completed. He asked that the process move as quickly as possible. Ms. Niles noted for clarification, the trees Commissioner Stutz recommended removing at the back of the lot which are the three pine trees (two 24" and one 30") are directly north of the proposed house. As viewed from down Wild Plum and from the houses looking up, the trees provide a good back drop for the size of the house so that it makes the house appear smaller. She requested they consider leaving one or two of those trees. Commissioner Stutz felt those trees were overly mature and dangerous to leave there. She felt they would come down shortly anyway. They could add a condition so they would plant another sizable tree in that area, perhaps a 24 or 36 inch live oak tree. Ms. Niles suggested that the Environmental Design Committee make a recommendation as to size and species through the landscape plan process. This could be added to condition 3, that the landscape plan consider replacement of some Planning Commission Minutes Approved 6/22/94 April 27,1994 Page 10 mitigation trees in this area. She also noted that the in -lieu fees are appropriate to take on site development and appear in the fee schedule ($7.00 per linear foot for site development projects, $7.00 per linear foot for street frontage or $500, which ever is greater, for each lot without a path, one time per lot). MOTION SECONDED AND PASSED: Motion by Commissioner Stutz and seconded by Commissioner Cheng to approve the Site Development Permit for a new residence and amended as follows: trees to be removed, kept and/or thinned as redlined by staff, add wording to #3 that the site development committee will consider replacement of some mitigation trees which are red lined to be removed (three pines at the back of the property) and that the committee will recommend the size and species of any replacement trees in that area; delete #12 until the City Council determines a path should be on both sides of Miranda. If a path is not required on this project, the applicant will pay an in -lieu fee per the Town fee schedule; and adding a condition noting the house will be lowered 18 inches from the present plans dated March 18, 1994. AYES: Vice -Chair Ellinger, Commissioners Cheng, Schreiner, Stutz & Takamoto NOES: None ABSENT: Chairman Comiso This item will appear on the City Council consent calendar May 4, 1994. 4 5.4 LANDS OF TSUI (55 -94 -LLA), APN 175-23-063 and 175-23-064, La Paloma Road; A request for a Lot Line Adjustment. Mr. Peterson introduced this item noting a letter had just been received by a neighbor requesting the vegetation by the driveway be kept for screening. The lot line adjustment will allow for the orientation of the proposed pool to keep it out of the setbacks. Bob Owen, 455 S. San Antonio Road, discussed the reasoning for the configuration of the lot line adjustment. The existing vegetation will remain for screening of the neighbor on the side and in back. The existing driveway which goes to the house in the back will not be modified. Tracy Weidman, applicant's daughter, commented that her mother's only concern was that no structure being built on the east end of the property where the lot line is would be higher than the existing shrubbery that guides the driveway because that would constitute a block of their view. CLOSED PUBLIC HEARING M Planning Commission Minutes Approved 6/22/94 April 27, 1994 Page 11 4W MOTION SECONDED AND PASSED: Motion by Commissioner Schreiner and seconded by Commissioner Takamoto to approve the lot line adjustment as submitted. AYES: Vice -Chair Ellinger, Commissioners Stutz, Takamoto, Cheng & Schreiner NOES: None ABSENT: Chairman Comiso This item will appear on the City Council consent calendar May 4, 1994. 5.5 LANDS OF BEN-ARTZI (26 -93 -SD -MOD), 27800 Via Feliz; A request for a Site Development Permit Modification to change or waive conditions regarding lighting and noise attenuation. Ms. Niles introduced this item discussing letters in the staff report. Most of the items at the time of the writing of the letter had been completed or in the process. At the site visit today she noted that all the other conditions had been met. The only two items remaining in question are the conditions from December 21, 1993 meeting which are; security lights to be on a motion sensor; and the pool equipment shall be enclosed on all four sides. Mr. Ben- Artzi s contractor indicated that it would be a major project to put the lights on a motion sensor system. In discussing the second item, she noted that the pool equipment has been enclosed on all four sides and the gates installed in a natural wood color. The noise absorption material has not been installed on the inside of the enclosure as yet. There has been complaints from some close neighbors that they can hear the pool equipment. Mr. Ben- Artzi felt that no other properties have been requested to put in noise attenuation materials inside a pool enclosure and asked that this request be waived. He did indicate that if the Planning Commission felt it was appropriate to install, he would comply. Ms. Niles noted that the only condition that is not complete is #1, the pathway easement document. She should have the notarized document by Monday. Condition 9, the last sentence states "the enclosure gates shall be painted brown." Commissioner Schreiner asked if that included the concrete area around it which presently is a very light natural color. Ms. Niles noted that the condition was only for the gates. The enclosure matches the stucco on the building. Commissioner Stutz discussed condition 4 regarding the corner driveway light prohibited from being an up -light. She noted the light on the post is still going up. Ms. Niles noted the approval was given without caps on the entry lights. OPENED PUBLIC HEARING Shelley Doran, Environmental Design Committee member, questioned condition #5 and the removal of a number of trees. She noted the Committee had requested more than the mentioned eight oak trees be planted and asked if this condition was satisfied as it reads. Ms. Niles noted that at the Site Development meeting all the input was listened to and a review of the proposed landscape plan. Only eight oaks were required. She noted that there are many more trees on the property and the condition only addressed the eight oaks. Mr. Ben-Artzi does have a $5,000 landscape deposit with the Town. Ms. Niles explained the landscape deposit procedure. 29 Planning Commission Minutes Approved 6/22/94 April 27, 1994 Page 12 June Dean, 27677 Lupine Road, felt none of the requirements had been met. She specifically did not see any oak trees planted as of today. She discussed the pool equipment never being approved by the Planning Commission in its present location; significant gaps in the gate; significant impact from her property with the pool equipment noise; she would prefer having the pool equipment where she could not see or hear it; the oak trees have not been planted as yet; discussed numerous letters sent to the Town; and drainage problems. She noted that her pool equipment was totally enclosed with a roof. She noted that this was never approved in the first place so no one had any opportunity to object until it was there. Sharyn Brown, 27673 Lupine Road, presented photos of the pool equipment. Ms. Niles noted that while she was visiting the property this afternoon, she noted the holes had been dug for the trees which were to be delivered that day. However she had to leave before they finished planting the trees. She mentioned that June Dean was correct regarding the lighting and the pool equipment as they were not part of the original plans and not approved. This was the reason Mr. Ben-Artzi submitted the modification application that the Planning Commission heard on December 21,1993. The staff report indicates additional conditions applied to the previously required conditions of December 21,1993 on items completed without permits. The Town has not taken legal action to date as the administrative process has not been completed. The statement regarding none of the conditions being met was incorrect. Regarding the skylights having baffles in them, she noted that the Town required the baffles. If the lighting is still obtuse, perhaps Ms. Dean can pursue with the Council. Commissioner Schreiner asked Ms. Dean if she would be satisfied if the color was changed and the pool equipment was totally enclosed. Ms. Dean noted she would reserve judgment. CLOSED PUBLIC HEARING Vice -Chair Ellinger noted that the issue before them was granting waivers for conditions that were placed by the Commission on work that was done without approval. Commissioner Schreiner noted that Ms. Dean was not the only one impacted. There was at least five to six other residents impacted. The Ben-Artzi house at times appears to be bathed in light to a point she thought there was an emergency situation only to find Mr. Ben-Artzi was out of town and simply had left the lights on. She presented the Commission with a device (motion sensor) which can be added on after the lights have been installed which is not very expensive and only takes 15 minutes to install. She has no problem asking Mr. Ben- Artzi to comply with the request for motion sensors. Regarding the pool house, she felt it could easily be mitigated by painting it an earth color and requiring the pool equipment to be enclosed on all four sides including a roof with noise absorption material installed. Commissioner Stutz suggested when there is a condition requiring pool equipment to be enclosed on all four sides, to be sure a roof is included. Regarding the skylight, she felt if the skylight cannot be toned down than the lights should be removed. Planning Commission Minutes Approved 6/22/94 April 27,1994 Page 13 MOTION SECONDED AND PASSED: Motion by Commissioner Stutz and seconded by Commissioner Schreiner to deny the request to modify, change or waive the conditions regarding lighting and noise attenuation with the following requirements: 1. The pool equipment is required to have the following: a roof installed, sound proof the gate and paint all a dark (soil) color. 2. All security lights shall be on a motion sensor with a five minute maximum time limit. 3. Remove the lighting in the skylights. 4. A re -inspection by staff of all the previous required conditions for compliance. AYES: Vice -Chair Ellinger, Commissioners Takamoto, Cheng, Schreiner & Stutz NOES: None ABSENT: Chairman Comiso This item will appear on the City Council consent calendar May 4, 1994. Five minute break at 9:50 p.m. 5.6 LANDS OF SCHERRER (59 -94 -VAR), 12788 La Cresta Drive; A request for a Variance to encroach into a side setback for a new residence. Ms. Niles introduced this item noting there was nothing to add to the staff report. However, this is a very unusual situation. The applicant received approval from the Planning Commission for a new single family dwelling on the site in 1990. At that time specific geologic conditions were placed on the redevelopment of the site by the Town's Geologist, William Cotton and Associates. Certain modifications were made to comply with the Cotton report and it was not noted that the required minor relocation of the house due to geologic constraints placed one end of the house up to 3.5 feet into one side yard setback. Because the reason for the modification was for safety, staff felt it was appropriate to consider approval of the variance. It was noted that the applicants were not the original owners. She also noted that in the conditions of approval it was required that the foundation was certified as being in the approved location, however was not. Staff received the certification letter just recently. The completion of this condition was not done at the right time. OPENED PUBLIC HEARING Kevin Fredrickson, civil engineer with Nowack & Associates, 2775 Park Avenue, Santa Clara, discussed the fact that the house extends a maximum of 3.5 feet into the side setback, does not impact the neighbor's property, is six feet below the neighbor's elevation, there is existing dense vegetation between the two parcels and the building separation is greater than the six feet. The encroachment is less than 100 square feet and it is all single story. He noted at this point, there was no remedy for correction. Planning Commission Minutes Approved 6/22/94 April 27,1994 Page 14 Fred Scherrer, 22639 Oak Crest Court, Cupertino, applicant, noted the features that would be impacted if the 100 square feet were removed; takes off the fireplace, cuts through the den, and cuts through the formal living room. CLOSED PUBLIC HEARING Commissioner Schreiner felt under the Variance findings, #2, she would like the last half of the last sentence deleted, stating "and the intended setback building separation of 30' side yard setbacks for a total of 60' is still maintained" as she did not feel this was necessary. MOTION SECONDED AND PASSED: Motion by Commissioner Cheng and seconded by Commissioner Schreiner to approve the variance with the deletion of the last half of the last sentence as noted by Commissioner Schreiner. AYES: Commissioners Stutz, Takamoto, Cheng & Schreiner NOES: None ABSTAIN: Vice -Chair Ellinger ABSENT: Chairman Comiso This item will appear on the City Council consent calendar May 4,1994. Vice -Chair Ellinger noted that his "Abstain' vote was only due to the nature of the requested approval. He had no real objections to the project. He also noted that there were no opposition by any neighbors either in writing or in person. 5.7 LANDS OF CHEN (33-94-ZP-SD), 27765 Lupine Road; A request for a Site Development Permit for a New Residence, Pool and Spa. Ms. Niles introduced this item noting that there were three additional letters received prior to this meeting from neighbors regarding this application. Commissioner Schreiner asked staff if there was any consideration to connect to sewer. Ms. Niles noted no, as the property is more than 1,000 feet away from a sewer system. OPENED PUBLIC HEARING John Dukes, 27783 Lupine Road, neighbor and husband of Gwyn Dukes who had submitted a letter regarding this application prior to the meeting. His discussion included: being a long time resident; did not want the project delayed in any way; the Chens wanting a low impact on the neighbors and neighborhood; the row of pine trees which are marked to be removed; bulk and size of the house from all angles; impact on their house; and the noise, dust and the visual unpleasantness while under construction needs to be mitigated by immediate planting (significant size) trees for screening. He suggested leaving the pine trees which are the only significant vegetation on the land and to do something to mitigate the bulk of the house. He also discussed the drainage situation in that area and the fence Planning Commission Minutes Approved 6/22/94 April 27,1994 Page 15 4 between the two properties. Mr. Dukes discussed his solution to the drainage concerns which involves a six inch drain pipe as shown on a plan he had brought with him. Commissioner Schreiner noted that he mentioned to her that some of the neighbors might be interested in a sewer system. Mr. Dukes commented that Mr. Draeger had investigated a sewer system and felt it might be expensive. Joanna Conte, 27771 Lupine Road, discussed the impact of the project especially from her kitchen which would be in full view. She would like to see the house lowered. She also noted drainage concerns as her house sits lower than the new project. Mel Harrison, 27744 Lupine Road, neighbor for 32 years. He was concerned with the bulk of the house and the loss of his view of the hills. He suggested leaving the pine trees which are proposed to be removed and lower the roof line. Sharyn Brown, 27673 Lupine Road, neighbor, discussed the policy of replacing each removed trees with three trees; the pathway being on the other side of the road; drainage concerns; and water run-off. Ms. Niles noted that the tree replacement of three (or five) to one is for oak trees. Nancy Cuperas,13680 Page Mill Road, discussed views; impact of a very large house; the Fenwick house fitting into the hill; and the style of home in the neighborhood. She would like to see some way to lower the house to fit better into the neighborhood. Michele Harrison, 13490 Page Mill Road, neighbor, discussed; the height of the house; the trees marked to be removed; and her view from most of her house will be the major portion of the Chen house. Rosalyn Betz, 27751 Lupine Road, neighbor, noted the following concerns: building a lower profile house; refrain from cutting down the Monterey pines; and make sure the pool is fenced. Mrs. Silens, 27693 Lupine Road, neighbor, discussed not received a notice; the Design Guidelines Handbook; and her concern with the proposed removal of the pine trees. Pong Ng, 404 Saratoga Avenue, Saratoga, project architect, discussed: the design; fitting it into the topography; all single story elements to the front of the property; trying to hide the garage; set the house back so not to impact neighbors on the sides; orientate all windows so they will not look down onto other properties; the roof line; the size of the eaves to bring the profile down; some pine trees are in poor condition; no problem maintaining the grove of trees on the left of the properties; they are proposing to remove three pine trees and retain three; and the larger lot in the area. He noted that they are not close to the maximum development or floor area allowed for the size of the lot. Mr. Ng commented that the only �W place available for the septic system is in front of the house, between the house and Lupine Road. Planning Commission Minutes Approved 6/22/94 April 27, 1994 Page 16 The Planning Commission discussed: the design of the house; recommended a model which would help with visualization; the possibility of removing the circular driveway which would help lower the house; the location of the septic system; the cost of a sewer system; the height of the house; concerns with the General Plan; possibly a one story house with mitigation; a well designed house, however not designed with the Town guidelines; and fitting into the neighborhood. It was felt that the neighbors were not really complaining about the size of the house as much as they are complaining about the height of the house. They would like the height lowered, especially Mrs. Conte who would significantly impacted. CLOSED PUBLIC HEARING Commissioner Stutz felt the project did not fit into the neighborhood and suggested possibly a one story house covering more property. She felt it was a nice design, however not designed within the Town Guidelines. She suggested a re -design. Vice -Chair Ellinger discussed the project approval, denial and appeal process to the applicants and Mr. Ng. He suggested a continuance for re -design, scheduling a site analysis meeting with the Planning Commission and perhaps look into a sewer system. The applicants did not wish a continuance. Ms. Niles clarified the applicants' options and the appeal process if the application was denied. Mrs. Chen commented that they had really tried to be concerned with the neighbors. However, the neighbors are accustomed to the neighborhood as it is. Mr. Ng and the applicants agreed to a continuance and possibly a meeting with the neighbors prior to a site analysis meeting. Commissioner Schreiner suggested the applicants and their project architect read the Design Guides Handbook. MOTION PASSED BY CONSENSUS: Motion by Commissioner Stutz, second by Commissioner Takamoto and passed by consensus to continue the application for a new residence and pool for a re -design (date not specified). 5.8 LANDS OF BILGER (2-94-ZP-SD-GD), 25901 Vinedo Lane; A request for a Site Development Permit for a New Residence and Pool. The applicant requested a two week continuance. This item was continued for two weeks at the request of the applicant. 6. NEW BUSINESS None Planning Commission Minutes Approved 6/22/94 April 27,1994 Page 17 4 7. OLD B 7.1 Request for discussion of interpretation of what qualifies as hardscape (Scruby) continued from April 13, 1994 for final determination. Jim Muscarella,14965 Page Mill Road, discussed the material in length, determination of MDA compliance, and requesting a 100% exemption of hardscape. He would like the Commission to look at the material the same as equivalent to grass. The material is 100 permeable Further discussion ensured. MOTION PASSED BY CONSENSUS: Motion by Vice -Chair Ellinger, seconded by Commissioner Stutz and passed by consensus to forward this topic and the following comments by the Planning Commission to the City Council for their determination. Commissioner Stutz felt they should extend 50% credit towards MDA as the material has many pluses and it is up to an individual as to what they want on their lot. Commission Takamoto was concerned with the use in different locations where they have no control over. He also had a concern with the aesthetics of it versus regular landscaping. 4 Commissioner Cheng was willing to give some percentage, however she did not have a percentage suggestion as she did not know the impact of the material and she did not feel it could be compared to natural landscaping. Commissioner Schreiner agreed with Commissioner Takamoto and Cheng. She felt this would be used to extend the MDA. She also felt that when the product was dry it would cause a problem. Vice -Chair Ellinger would like to see it treated with a permeability factor of at least 50 credit. However, he would require that wherever it was installed, it would be used only in level areas, only areas that are relatively shielded from wind and must be installed with a sprinkler system. 7.2 General Plan Elements -Update schedule for work sessions a. Land Use Element -Continued. b. Circulation Element -Continued. C. Conservation Element -Continued. d. Scenic Highways Elements -Continued. C. Noise Element -Continued. f. Seismic Safety/Safety Elements -Continued to May 9th at 5:30 p.m. g. Open Space Element -Continued. Planning Commission Minutes Approved 6/22/94 April 27,1994 Page 18 8. APPROVAL OF MINUTES 8.1 Approval of the April 13,1994 Minutes. MOTION SECONDED AND PASSED BY CONSENSUS: Motion by Commissioner Stutz, second by Commissioner Schreiner and passed by consensus to approve the minutes of April 13,1994. 9. REPORT FROM THE SITE DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE MEETING S OF APRIL 12 AND 19.1994, 9.1 LANDS OF ZUNINO/DOWNEND, 26555 Ascension Drive; A request for a Site Development Permit for a Hardscape, Driveway Modification and Trellis. Approved with conditions April 12,1994. 9.2 LANDS OF SCHERRER,12788 La Crest a Drive; A request for a Site Development Permit for Landscape. Approved with conditions April 19,1994. The meeting was adjourned by consensus at 1:20 a.m. Respectfully submitted, La ni Lonberger Planning Secretary 09