Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout07/13/1994APPROVED 7/27/94 �r Minutes of a Regular Meeting Town of Los Altos Hills PLANNING COMMISSION Wednesday, July 13,1994, 7:00 P.M. Council Chambers, 26379 Fremont Road cc: t.asseues wry -7s t o / 1, unr r CALL r 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, McMahon, Gottlieb, Schreiner, Stutz & Takamoto Staff: Linda Niles, Planning Director; Jeff Peterson, City Engineer; Suzanne Davis, Assistant Planner; Lani Lonberger, Planning Secretary f The Planning Commission welcomed their newest member, Carol Gottlieb who �r replaced Rick Ellinger whose presence will be missed. 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 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 a JLY 6,1224 A public packet is available the Friday prior to the City Council meeting for the Planning Commission representative. Planning Commission Minutes APPROVED 7/27/94 July 13, 1994 Page 2 4.1 Commissioner Schreiner reported the following items were discussed: Fremont Hills Country Club pulled and will be noticed for public hearing for July 20th; appointments to the Planning Commission -Stutz and Gottlieb; request for a one year extension (after a five year period) for a site development permit for a landscape plan for Lands of Salazar was denied; reviewed and gave direction regarding grading on lot 5 of the Finn subdivision; safety problem on the Bellucci property being used for trash dumping and 4 wheel driving; and appointments of Council liaisons to standing committees. 4.2 Planning Commission Representative for July 20 will be Commissioner Comiso. 5. PUBLIC HEARINGS If you challenge the proposed action(s) in court, you may be limited to raising only those issues you or someone else raised at the public hearing described below, or in written correspondence delivered to the Planning Commission at, or prior to, the public hearing. All applications approved or denied at tonight's Planning Commission meeting are subject to a 10 day waiting period during which any member of the City Council may initiate a Council review, or any member of the public may appeal the Planning Commission decision. 5.1 LANDS OF BEIGLER,14780 Manuella Road( 236-93-ZP-SD); A request for modification to a previously approved Site Development Permit for an addition to existing residence, detached garage, and studio. Ms. Davis introduced this item noting that in December, 1993 the applicants received approval for a major addition, remodel, demolition and reconstruction of a detached garage and new accessory building. The applicants are now proposing revisions to their plans which are substantial enough to warrant Commission review. The changes include additions to the residence in different locations than previously shown, addition of a two story (in height) entry feature, and the connection of an accessory building to the main house. The existing detached two car garage and a detached guest house will be demolished. The new accessory building will be used as a studio and the existing accessory building will remain. It will be attached to the residence and remodeled. The existing garage is located approximately two feet from the west property line. The new garage and carport will be five feet from the property line. The non conforming regulations allow the garage to be removed and replaced provided that the nonconformity is not increased. The new placement of the garage will actually improve the situation and reduce the degree of the nonconformity. There are no kitchen facilities in any accessory structure. Commissioner Schreiner asked why the easement over the south property line is not counted in the development area calculations. Ms. Davis responded, it was an access easement which is not included in the net lot area. In discussing the tower element, it was noted that if the floor to ceiling height exceeds 17 feet, it would count twice towards floor area. C. OPENED PUBLIC HEARING Planning Commission Minutes APPROVED 7/27/94 July 13, 1994 Page 3 Mike Beigler, 14780 Manuella Road, applicant, was available for questions. Commissioner McMahon questioned the two foot prints on the plans for a garage, asking whether the roof would be flat or gabled noting the site plan was correct in location and type of roof. Mr. Beigler explained that they have been hunting for the old type of tile presently on the roof. If they can find the tile, they are asking for a gabled roof. If they cannot find the tile, they are asking for a flat roof. Commissioner McMahon asked if there was a link between the new studio and the house in the MDA. Mr. Beigler responded there will be flagstones (separated) so it will not count towards the MDA. There was a concern with the master suite windows not matching the existing windows (western elevation). The applicants noted windows as shown on the plans were correct. The tower height was discussed with a suggestion of a one and a half story height versus a two story height. Trees not shown on the Site Plan were discussed. Condition #3 noted no trees were to be removed. There are trees that will be removed due to construction. Mr. Beigler noted the removed trees will all be replaced. Also of concern was the need to verify the MDA as far as what is being removed. If they are removing a portion of the driveway or changing the asphalt to grasscrete, the Planning Commission needs to know. Mr. Beigler indicated that they have not decided as yet. Commissioner Schreiner discussed MDA. The area coming out of the studio does not meet the high heal rule. Ms. Davis noted there would be flagstone stepping stones in that area. There will be a landing for every exit as mandated by UBC. Ms. Davis discussed condition #10, noting that they were not approving the 20 foot width of the driveway but approving the project with the condition that they remove appropriate amounts of development area to make the project work. Commissioner Stutz noted that it was not clear as to what exactly will be done. Mr. Beigler noted that they have ample development areas to remove (patios and driveway) to be within the 13,845 square feet of development area. Ms. Niles indicated that staff will work with the applicants to make sure proper amounts of development area are removed. They have concrete patios, walkways and a very wide driveway to use for removal of development area. Normally, the plan indicates where development area would be removed. Commissioner Takamoto was not concerned with the 15 square feet to be removed noting if they removed three inches off the length of the driveway, this would accomplish the required amount needed. He felt the project was well designed. The applicants had no concerns with the recommended conditions. It was suggested to add to condition #3 that staff will visit the site prior to issuance of permits to evaluate and redline the trees to be removed (appears to be five trees coming out). The carport next to the garage was discussed. Ms. Davis noted that the parking space that is adjacent to the garage was okay in that location. It would not typically be okay because it is in the setback but it is in this case because there was a garage there previously. The pad in the back area would have to be out of the setback. The location of the car space is definitely next to the new garage. The new carport will not have a roof. The length of ( the carport was discussed noting the correct plan was as shown on the floor plan, not �r the site plan. Planning Commission Minutes APPROVED 7/27/94 July 13, 1994 Page 4 CLOSED PUBLIC HEARING Commissioner McMahon asked if the wording "tar and gravel" could be added to page 2, paragraph 3, the first sentence of the staff report. It was noted that the sump pump will be removed as the worksheet figures indicate. MOTION SECONDED AND PASSED: Motion by Commissioner McMahon and seconded by Commissioner Cheng to approve the Site Development Permit for a major addition and remodel, including demolition and reconstruction of a detached garage and an accessory building with modifications, noting comments and the change to condition #3 as follows: 3. If any tree six inches in diameter or larger is removed to accommodate construction or if a tree is damaged or destroyed during construction, it may be required to be replaced. The replacement tree(s) may be equal in size to the removed or damaged tree(s), as determined by the Planning Director. Staff will visit the site prior to issuance of any building permits to evaluate and redline any trees to be removed, moved and/or replaced. AYES: Chairman Comiso, Commissioners Takamoto, McMahon, Gottlieb, Cheng, f Schreiner & Stutz ` NOES: None This item will appear on the City Council consent calendar July 20, 1994. 5.2 LANDS OF BELDEN, 12033 Green Hills Court (100-94-ZP-SD-GD); A request for a Site Development Permit for a major addition and remodel. Commissioner Stutz discussed the staff report noting an incorrect statement on page 2, paragraph 3 noting, "the pathways committee visited the site and has no recommendations for pathways in the vicinity". Ms. Davis noted the sentence should state "the pathways committee had no recommendations for paths on the property" not that there are no paths in the vicinity. Pathways Committee recommendation states "no request' but they would like in -lieu fees whenever possible. If the Commission feels this is appropriate, this can be added on as a condition. OPENED PUBLIC HEARING Peter Duxbury, 545 Byron Street, Palo Alto, architect, discussed the straight forward design, extending the upstairs to add two bedrooms to have a total of five bedrooms. The bulk of the addition is being added to the back of the house. Commissioner Schreiner discussed the recessed quality of the house. The applicants had no problems with the conditions of approval. Planning Commission Minutes APPROVED 7/27/94 July 13, 1994 Page 5 CLOSED PUBLIC HEARING In discussing the addition, the Commission had no concerns and complimented the design. MOTION SECONDED AND PASSED: Motion by Commissioner Schreiner and seconded by Commissioner McMahon to approve the Site Development Permit for a major addition as conditioned by staff. AYES: Chairman Comiso, Commissioners Gottlieb, Cheng, Schreiner, Stutz, Takamoto & McMahon NOES: None This item will appear on the City Council consent calendar for July 20, 1994. 5.3 LANDS OF CHAN, 14295 Saddle Mountain Road (61-94-ZP-SD-GD); A request for a Site Development Permit for a New Residence (continued from June 8 and 22, 1994). Commissioner Schreiner asked Ms. Davis for clarification of the status of Saddle Mountain Road and the emergency road that is on the Chan's property. Ms. Davis Q. noted that the first part of it is paved because it is also the driveway access to the Mehta property. The emergency road is on the Chan property. The Mehtas have an easement on the property. It was noted that the new PA6 was submitted for clarification as they did not feel the original plan showed the proper scale on the two neighboring homes compared to theirs. They changed the plan to show them in the same context. OPENED PUBLIC HEARING John Komo, 23225 Ravensbury, Komo Construction, discussed the history of the project, the process, codes, and ordinances. For the past eight months they have worked very diligently, taking staff's direction. He felt they had a design that the Town supported, however due to the lack of the Civil Engineer plan at the June 8th meeting, the project was continued. At that meeting there was a neighbor who expressed concerns. Because of the missing Civil Engineering plan, he felt the application was severely misunderstood. At the Commissions request, they have submitted a new, complete set of drawings with the following information clarified; story poles, grading and drainage, section details with three different views to help clarify the cut and fill of the house, the pool has been removed from the application and the cut and fill reflect this change. One of the comments raised at the previous hearing involved the cut. They are cutting in at the far corner which is closest to the Tam's property about 7 to 71 /2 feet at ( the living room corner of the home. In working with the staff, they felt this would be �✓ the highest point of the lot. By cutting this area they were able to lower the whole Planning Commission Minutes APPROVED 7/27/94 July 13,1994 Page 6 profile and the bulk of the home. This is also the corner closest to the 125 foot view easement that encumbers this lot. At that point, the single story part of the home goes back 50 feet. With the 7 to 71/2 cut, they are only above existing grade four to six feet (living room). He further discussed the fill (two to three feet under the house, five to five and a half under the driveway); contours of the lot; the two story element on low ends of the crest covering 55% of the first floor; and the "tower" architectural feature. Also, the constrained lot due to the view easement, the conservation easement, the emergency access road, the road right-of-way, the health department requirements for leach lines (600 feet), an additional expansion field (600 feet), and utility easements. He noted that since the first meeting, more neighbors have expressed concerns. He provided the Commission with an outline handout in response to those concerns, discussing each item including: the "low profile neighborhood" mentioning there are a number of two to three story (facade) homes on Saddle Mountain, and many are not low profile (the Tam Letter); following the contours; following the city guidelines; the full size outside kitchen actually being a barbecue area; and the blocking of views. Also discussed was the misinformation regarding the highest point of the house which will be 27 feet, not 35 feet, the tower ridge, story poles, building pad, cut and fill amounts, driveway approach, petition by neighbors, the Mourad's letter, the Ben-Artzi letter, and the Dean letter noting drainage concerns. He also provided the Commission with photos of the neighborhood. He noted that this home has been designed within the limitations of the lot, within the city guidelines and specifications, and they have followed the staffs recommendations. Each lot is unique and they ask that the Commission evaluate this project on its own merit and according to the facts given. Commissioner Schreiner commented that she believed that Mr. Tam was referring to the Schwartz subdivision when he was making his statement regarding low profile houses. She discussed the history of the Schwartz subdivision and the Saddle Mountain subdivision. The driveway height of the curb and the wall was discussed. It was felt it measures out to 15 feet from the beginning of the adjacent road. They are planning to landscape in that particular area. Commissioner Schreiner wanted to make sure they understood that within the 15 feet there is probably be a requirement for a constructed pathway. Further discussion involved the driveway, noting the driveway coming off of Saddle Mountain follows the contour as best as possible to the parking area in front of the garage doors. The Town had recommended a turn around for backing out of the garage to drive down the driveway. The curb is six inches for drainage. There is no wall. Regarding the pathway, Ms. Niles noted the Pathway Committee recommendation was that the path be maintained in good condition. Commissioner Schreiner felt this would need to be changed. Commissioner Stutz discussed the grading for the driveway and following the contour line. The contours as you come up the driveway indicate that the six inch curb would ` need to be higher. Jerry Clements, Civil Engineer noted that from the downhill side, it's like a one foot wall. The slope continues to go up as you go up the driveway. The wall Planning Commission Minutes APPROVED 7/27/94 July 13, 1994 [ Page 7 would go up to two feet at the highest point. In summary, it would range from one foot at the left side to two feet at the corner on right. Plantings below the wall would hide it from the neighbors. Commissioner Stutz would like to see the garage and the right side of the house lowered as it appears to be a flat lot house. Steve Hubbard, 745 Distel Drive, Los Altos, architect, presented overhead views of the design, showing elevations of existing natural grade and finished floor elevations. Commissioner Schreiner read from the Municipal Code under Construction, Sec. 10- 2.703, noting that on page 14 of the Design Guidelines Handbook what is desired is not a cut in the front and fill in the back to make a flat lot pad but a cut in the back and then the house stepped down to follow the natural contours. Mr. Hubbard commented that the maximum cut is 71 /2 feet. The most fill is under the house which is two feet at one corner of the house. Visually, they are not stepping the house down. Mr. Komo felt they were following the contours, being sensitive to the view easement. Commissioner Schreiner noted that all three houses in that area would be in a line which would impact each other. Commissioner Gottlieb commented on the pathway recommendation. She noted that a pathway was built along Saddle Mountain Drive at the time of the subdivision. The pathway has eroded away due to disking so the path would have to be put back in along Saddle Mountain Drive. What would help now on the portion of the fire road where it is paved would be to have the path above the fire road. Chairman Comiso asked if the pathway could be in the fire road. Mr. Peterson noted that they would have to check with the Fire Department. However it would likely be okay. The 20 foot easement provides enough room for fire truck access and pathway. It was suggested to word a condition "to the satisfaction of staff and the pathway committee." Details can be worked out between the applicant, Planning Commission and the Staff. Commissioner Stutz did not think they should put in an established path beyond the hammer head. It was noted if the path is paved the whole 20 feet and it is to be used not only for emergency access but for pathway, the area for a pathway should be roughened. Jerry Clements addressed Commissioner Schreiner's concern regarding the slope of the land. The average slope is misleading in this case because the average slope includes the land that is on the other side of Saddle Mountain Road which is quite steep and the land that is further down towards the east side of the property. The upper side of the house just touches the 435 contour and the lower end of the house is at elevation 422 or 423. There is between a 12 and 13 foot difference in elevation on the existing contours on a house which is about 110 feet long. The average slope across where the house is actually located is 11-12% so they are within the 14% noted in the Town guidelines. Sharad Mehta, 14293 Saddle Mountain Drive, discussed the very large house that will block his view. Although he has no problem with the size of house, the lights from vehicles exiting the garage may reflect or shine towards his home. He would prefer the Planning Commission Minutes APPROVED 7/27/94 July 13, 1994 Page 8 4 house be moved to the back side of the property. Mr. Mehta provided overhead slides of the story poles to show how his view towards the Chan lot will be affected. Kim Tam, 14297 Saddle Mountain Drive, had a letter from 17 concerned neighbors within walking distance of the project who think the Chan's should change their plans to better fit the site and contours. He discussed the huge amount of grading, the tower feature, and following the contours of the land. In discussing the cut and fill, staff noted the correct figures for cut (1,600 c.u) and fill (1,500 c.u.). Mr. Tam noted that he had to remove the tower off his plans at the time his project was approved. He does not want to look at a tall tower and a freeway type driveway. Mr. Tam provided overheads of views from his house and Mr. Mehta's. He requested a low profile look. If this house is allowed to be built this way, he will not forgive those who approve it. He requested detailed calculations of the cut and fill. June Dean, 27677 Lupine Road, neighbor behind the property. She had a number of concerns not yet addressed which were the privacy impact on her property, the whole upper level of the house looking into the front two bedrooms, looking directly down onto the pool, drainage issues, and the MDA in this area needing review. Other concerns involve land space, deck space, the parking space, the building up of driveways, increasing the slope which helps force runoff. She felt that the back side of her property will have a distinct view of both levels of this house. She provided overheads of her potential views from the bedrooms, pool and pool deck. She discussed the reason she moved to Lupine Road and the new homes going in are much larger which do not preserve the environment. Sam Mehta, 14293 Saddle Mountain Drive, son of Sharad Mehta, commented on views and his concerns with the driveway car lights shining onto their property. He suggested moving the house to the side so everyone would have better views including the Chans. Stephen Chan, 661 Litton Court, Sunnyvale, applicant, noted their consideration of their neighbors while designing their house. He presented photographs showing views of the surrounding neighbors. The angle of their house, where it would be viewed, is mainly from the Mehtas' garage. The Mehtas have views elsewhere and they would see any house that is built. Trees and shrubs can be planted. As far as moving the house further back, they already have a 125 foot view easement, using a one story element immediately behind the view easement. They have designed and oriented the house to preserve some views for neighbors, not to intrude on them. He noted the many two story, two story plus houses in the area and he was surprised to hear that the area is being viewed as low profile. He further discussed the petition signed by the neighbors and showed their location in relationship to his property. He felt the wording on the petition was very vague. Most of the people on Saddle Mountain Drive and Court will not see the lot from their homes. Three of the four homes on Lupine Road will not see E the lot. Mr. Mourad will see the lot somewhat but only a portion of the lot, mostly the �1► view easement and the one story portion. Mr. Mourad does have a 3600 view. The Planning Commission Minutes APPROVED 7/27/94 July 13,1994 Page 9 ibw Dean house roof line is very low. He felt he would not see into the bedrooms unless he was repairing his roof. The only neighbors who will see this house are the Tams, the Mehtas and the Handleys. The Handleys are a distance away with 3600 views. Mr. Tam's property is very much higher than his property. Mr. Metha, as he has shown, will still maintain many of his views. Commissioner Schreiner asked if Mr. Chan had considered orientation of the house so he would have a better view. If the house is built as proposed, he will be affected by the Tam and Mehta homes. She felt the view for him would be better if the house were pushed further back on the lot. Mr. Chan noted he has quite a bit of open view with the proposed orientation and location. The design becomes more difficult if the house is pushed back due to the slope being steeper. It would also require more engineering requirements. Commissioner Gottlieb felt one of the problems was the area where the garage is located. By the time they put up a retaining wall which is about five feet, building up the driveway five feet, then putting the two story element, all combines to give a substantially bulky look. At the end of the fire road, she noticed a very nice contour where they could come up with a driveway with hardly any kind of excavation. It would go naturally into an underground garage. If they could bring the garage down further, using the natural slope to come up to it, move the house and orient it a little bit off into the valley, the views would be better. Also, the Mehtas would be impacted less. Mr. Chan discussed the driveway noting that they were discouraged by staff to use the emergency road. He presented more overheads, discussing the Dean property, the pool privacy issue and the planting of a tree either on the Dean property for screening or on his. He discussed the drainage issue noting the City Engineer did not indicate any concerns. Before they purchased the property, they had indications from the staff that there would be no problem with the design presented as the lot was suitable for what they wanted to build. He felt that they have followed all Town guidelines and staff recommendations and hoped that the Commission could separate fact from fiction. John Komo clarified that it is not a five foot retaining wall on the Methas' side. It will be graded in that area with landscaping on the slope. Jerry Clements previously noted that the wall there would be more of a curb, varying from six inches to two feet. There will be dirt there with landscaping. The distance between the Chans and the Dean property was asked. The corner of the Chans' family room is approximately 200 feet away from the adjoining property line. It appears the Dean property is at least another 100 feet away. The Dean property is somewhere between 300-350 feet away from the Chans. Carol Tam, 14297 Saddle Mountain Drive discussed the petition, noting all of the people who signed the petition have seen the plan. Some of them have visited the site to see ( the impact on the environment and on the neighbors. She discussed her house size and height. Because they and other neighbors changed their plans and design, it has made the area less obtrusive for the Chans who are coming in now. They had to go through Planning Commission Minutes APPROVED 7/27/94 July 13, 1994 Page 10 many changes to their house when going through the approval process. The Chans are proposing an extremely high, extremely bulky, two story structure on the narrowest portion of the lot. The proposed design is not a low profile house. She was not asking for special treatment, but the same guidelines used a few years ago when their house was up for approval. Mrs. Tam presented photographs taken from the Mourad and Ben-Artzi property. Commissioner McMahon asked where the photos were taken from which were views from the Tams towards the Chan lot. Mrs. Tam replied from the front yard, below the living area in front of the garage level. Nan Komo, part of the design team for Komo Construction, felt the Tams had a misconception of the house design. She explained design considerations and stated that the Tams perception of what the house will look like is not correct. Plantings and the house will flow with the land. The Tams will look over the house and the Mehtas will look up at green. When completed, it will be a very lovely and graceful home. CLOSED PUBLIC HEARING Brief 5 minute break Commissioner Schreiner asked staff the reasoning behind not using the emergency road to get into the garage. Ms. Niles noted that the original design proposed showed an "in and out' and they told the applicant that the Town Council had recently ruled that they did not want circular driveways. They needed to go in one way and out the same way but could have a circular driveway on the site. They discussed the pros and cons of both. Staff did not like the exact location of the garage directly across from the other garage for accessing onto the emergency access easement because of the possible traffic problems or the siting because of the steep slope. They thought when they returned with the design showing the driveway on Saddle Mountain, they were able to provide a buffer of landscaping along the driveway and in front of the garage that would help screen the house from the Mehtas. This would cause less impact than having the entire area in front of the garage open to the Mehtas which could not be planted for mitigation screening. Ms. Niles noted that there is nothing to prevent them from going down the emergency road although it is a shorter access and a steeper slope into the drive. You would not be able to plant either. She noted that the area in front of the garage is the two story portion. It would be preferred to have some planting in front of that area in particular for mitigation of the two story portion. Commissioner Schreiner asked if they sited the house differently, pushing it down the slope, what would be the drainage impact. Mr. Peterson noted that if the house is moved southeast, more drainage could be directed to the southeast which would be to the east of the Dean property. Much depends upon what the civil engineer plans on doing with the driveway and hardscape drainage which would be one of the biggest issues. Commissioner McMahon felt the design of the house superb. Without question, she had no problems with the house itself, however it does not fit this lot. The lot slopes down; the house does not. She further discussed a sloped hill and creating a level Planning Commission Minutes APPROVED 7/27/94 July 13, 1994 Page 11 platform. The design departs from the intent of the Design Guidelines (page 14). She had no doubt this house can be redesigned to better fit the lot. The house should be pushed further down hill (for the enhancement of the views and the respect of the neighbors), and once you move it down hill let it step with the hill. It will conform to and blend with the environment. Commissioner Gottlieb agreed with her statements. Commissioner Stutz also felt it was a flat lot house, not fitting the land. She discussed this subdivision of four lots, the other house designs in the area and how they fit into the land. The neighbors do have a right to say what goes into the neighborhood. Commissioner Takamoto does not disagree with what has been said. However, he would like to bring up several points for consideration: there is not much vegetation in the area; any house in the area without vegetation and landscaping will stand out; a two story house provides more outdoor recreation area; and moving the house back would increase the drainage below. Until there is a clear cut rule that they cannot have a lot on a hill that is graded, there is room to actually grade a level pad on a hillside lot. Put in the total context, this house is workable. Commissioner Cheng noted that she was not an architect or designer, but she did like the plan. Due to the neighborhood concerns, she was not sure what to recommend to the applicants, however she felt there was ample input from the staff, neighbors and Commission. Chairman Comiso felt this was a workable plan. This is a very bare piece of land and very visible at this point. The addition of landscaping is helping the Saddle Mountain area and can help this site. She understood the neighbors concerns, but noted the pictures presented should be accurate and the information should be presented in a fair representation of what neighbors and people across the valley will see. She illustrated what a change in color (white, tan, brown) can do to blend a house into the site. She was not in favor of spreading this house out as a one story. Commissioner Schreiner asked the applicant if they would be willing to redesign the house with the input from the Commission, addressing stepping the house down, following the contours; consider one story; reduce grading; the general line of the house should be in general line with the site, move the house back on the lot; and do not site the house at the highest point. Mr. Komo discussed lowering the profile. Commissioner McMahon would like to see the general line of the house be complimentary to the general slope of the property. If the house was relocated more downhill it would compliment the slope. Those two things would address the neighbors concerns, the views, etc. She offered to work with the applicants individually to achieve an acceptable design. Mr. Chan asked if two stories were acceptable. Commissioner McMahon responded yes. The applicant's options were discussed in length. The applicant agreed to a redesign to return September 14th, kw accepting Commissioner McMahon's offer to work with the applicants individually along with staff. Planning Commission Minutes APPROVED 7/27/94 July 13, 1994 Page 12 MOTION SECOND AND PASSED: Motion by Chairman Comiso and seconded by Commissioner McMahon to continue the Site Development Permit for redesign. AYES: Chairman Comiso, Commissioners Cheng, Schreiner, Stutz, Takamoto, McMahon & Gottlieb NOES: None Commissioner Stutz discussed drainage and was under the impression from the previous meeting that it would drain towards Saddle Mountain Road. She felt it was very important that it goes to Saddle Mountain Road as they have a regular drainage easement on their property. Mr. Peterson noted what he would prefer is splitting the water up and sending it in as many directions as possible as opposed to sending it all to one place. 5.4 LANDS OF YOUNG, 27840 Saddle Court (101 -94 -VAR; A request for a Variance for pathway and driveway lights to be placed within the front setback. Staff had nothing further to add to the staff report. Commissioner Stutz discussed the sidewalk coming out from the front door to the street which goes clear across the 10 foot right-of-way; engineering should review walkway; the walkway was shown on the plan incorrectly; the plan shows planting beyond the property line; the applicant does not need the extra lights; she would not agree to any lights on the sidewalk; and no lights should be in the right-of-way. She suggested only allowing one light as you go down the driveway on the right hand corner so people that are backing up will have a light showing the edge of pavement. Commissioner Stutz further discussed parking in the cul-de-sac which she would not recommend and recommended a "no parking" sign. Mr. Peterson noted that the walkway within the right-of-way will need to be removed. Commissioner Schreiner suggested allowing half of the lights and lowering them to 18 inches high. OPENED PUBLIC HEARING Morley Young, 27840 Saddle Court, applicant, discussed the requested lights for the safety of cars going down the driveway. He did not feel the lights would be obtrusive to the neighbors and are essential for safety. They are not decorative lights but are low wattage lights only to light the driveway and walkway. Commissioner Stutz did not feel the driveway was that long or that steep and she felt the lights encouraged on street parking. Commissioner Schreiner felt the other two Planning Commission Minutes APPROVED 7/27/94 July 13, 1994 Page 13 neighbors driveways were dangerous. She recommended removing half the number of requested lights, making them farther apart, and reducing the height to 18 inches. CLOSED PUBLIC HEARING The Commission discussed the length of the driveway, the number of lights needed for safety, other applicants requesting a variance for lights in a setback, and the height of the requested lights. Commissioner Schreiner wanted to make very sure that the reason they would be granting a variance for the lights would be for safety. The next question would be how many lights would you need to meet the safety requirement. She would like to see the number of lights reduced and/or the lights staggered so the area is lit. Further discussion ensued. MOTION SECONDED AND PASSED: Motion by Commissioner Takamoto and seconded by Commissioner McMahon to approve the variance findings allowing a total of six lights within the front setback; three on the path and three on the walkway, 18 inches high, as redlined on the plan, with the recommended conditions of approval as conditioned by staff. AYES: Commissioners Gottlieb, Cheng, Schreiner, Takamoto & McMahon 160 NOES: Chairman Comiso & Commissioner Stutz This item will appear on the City Council consent calendar July 20, 1994. 5.5 LANDS OF KIM,12005 Finn Lane (66-94-ZP-SD); A request for a Site Development Permit for a new residence and pool. This item was continued to July 27th. 6.1 Report on CDBG. The current CDBG representatives are Linda Niles, Planning Director and Les Jones, City Manager. 6.2 Reorganization of the Planning Commission MOTION SECONDED AND PASSED BY CONSENSUS: Motion by Commissioner Takamoto, seconded by Commissioner Cheng and passed by consensus electing Chairman Schreiner and Vice -Chair McMahon. OLD BUSINESS 7.1 General Plan Elements -Schedule for work sessions (continued). L 7.2 Rotating Schedule for attendance of City Council Meetings 1994/1995 4r including new Planning Commissioner Gottlieb was discussed. IIq L Planning Commission Minutes APPROVED 7/27/94 July 13, 1994 Page 14 8. APPROVAL OF MINUTES 8.1 Approval of the June 22 1994 Minutes. MOTION SECONDED AND PASSED BY CONSENSUS: To approve the June 22 minutes with Commissioners Gottlieb, McMahon, Comiso & Cheng abstaining. 8.2 Approval of the June 29, 1994 Minutes. Ms. Niles provided the Commission with a draft of the corrected conditions of approval for the Fremont Hills Country Club for their review. If there are any changes required, the Commissioners will notify Ms. Niles by the July 30th. MOTION SECONDED AND PASSED BY CONSENSUS: To approve the June 29 minutes with changes and modification to the Fremont Hills Country Club conditions of approval, and changes to page 3, 4, 5 and 6 as requested by Commissioner Schreiner. 9. REPORT FROM THE SITE DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE MEETING OF MTLY 5.1994 041, 9.1 LANDS OF KWOK, 26837 Purissima Road; A request for a Site Development Permit for a Landscape Plan. Approved with conditions. 9.2 LANDS OF SHAG, 25680 Elena Road; A request for a Site Development Permit for a Landscape Plan. Approved with conditions. 1 W I • 1S_►Iu The meeting was adjourned by consensus at 11:55 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Lani Planning Secretary