Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout09/14/1994APPROVED 9/26/94 �w Minutes of a Regular Meeting Town of Los Altos Hills PLANNING COMMISSION Council cc: Cas; rber 14,1994,7:00 P.M. 26379 Fremont Road t• A hUDIWAVIDUE93 W.1:01 Planning Commission meeting was called to order at 7:00 p.m. in the Council Chambers at Town Hall. Present: Chairman Schreiner, Commissioners Cheng, McMahon, Gottlieb, Comiso & Stutz Absent: Commissioner Doran Staff: Linda Niles, Planning Director; Jeff Peterson, City Engineer; Suzanne Davis, Assistant Planner; Land Lonberger, Planning Secretary 2. PRESENTATIONS FROM THE FLOOR 2.1 "Affordable Housing" presentation by Marcia Fein and Nancy Noe of the Housing Action Coalition of Santa Clara County discussing "Myths" (1) Affordable housing causes too much traffic; (2) High-density development strains public services and infrastructure; (3) People who live in affordable housing won't fit into my neighborhood; (4) Affordable housing reduces property values; and (5) Affordable housing increases crime. "Housing Action Collation, An Overview" handout was also presented to the Planning Commission. 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. Planning Commission Minutes APPROVED 9/28/94 September 14, 1994 t Page 2 4. REPORT FROM TUE CITY COUNCIL I MEETING OF SEPTEMBER 7 1994 4.1 Commissioner McMahon reported the following items were discussed: Shelley Doran appointed to the Planning Commission; request for Council approval for staff to select an environmental consultant to review the Packard project and prepare a negative declaration; public hearing items designation of the Puri/Shumate House as a historic landmark, Lands of Vucinich continued to December 7 -only drainage and related costs was discussed; Bullis-Purissima School funding of crossing guard services and installation of stop signs at the intersection of West Edith and Fremont Road; and approval of Lands of Chen. 4.2 Planning Commission Representative for September 21st will be Commissioner Gottlieb. 5. PUBLIC HEARINGS 5.1 LANDS OF NGUYEN, 11632 Rebecca Lane (82-94-ZP-SD); A request for a Site Development Permit for an addition and pool (continued from June 22,1994). Continued to September 28, 1994. 5.1 LANDS OF CHAN,14295 Saddle Mountain Drive (61-94-ZP-SD); A request for 4 Site Development Permit for a new residence (continued from July 13,1994). Mrs. Davis introduced this item noting pages 11 and 12 of the approved July 27, 1994 minutes were missing from the staff report. Commissioner Comiso discussed previous meetings asking if neighbors were ever noticed of special meetings as she felt neighbors need to be involved and their input was very important. OPENED PUBLIC HEARING Stephen Chan, 661 Litton Court, Sunnyvale, applicant, summarized the process they have gone through to reach this point. He thanked the two Commissioners and staff for their time and help. Changes in the plan included moving the house further back on the lot; modified the driveway; lowering the height; and reducing the fill. The outside barbecue area and sink are still part of the plan noting this is not a complete kitchen. The pool is not part of this application. Mr. Chan commented on the conversation he had four days prior with Mr. Tam. At that time Mr. Tam noted approval of the project and the changes made. Commissioner Gottlieb questioned the driveway as proposed as being in the steepest part of the lot. Mr. Chan noted that beginning the driveway at the highest point would require the least grading which was recommended by his civil engineer. Commissioner Gottlieb asked if the driveway access from the emergency access road was considered. Mr. Chan said that they felt the impact to the downhill neighbor, the Mehtas, would be greater with the driveway coming off the emergency f access road. Ms. Niles noted that this was discussed in length at previous meetings and fir' with the subcommittee. It was felt the present driveway design was best. Chairman Planning Commission Minutes APPROVED 9/28/94 September 14,1994 ( Page 3 Schreiner asked about landscaping within the view easement. Mr. Chan noted that the restriction is on structures only. Mr. Chan agreed to all conditions of approval. Commissioner Gottlieb had concerns about the house. Many people in that area have done a lot of mitigation on their properties. The four car garage will be very visible. She asked if they would consider two double doors for the garage and suggested a berm by the garage to help hide the garage and break up the expanse of the doors. Mr. Chan noted that they plan to do extensive landscaping in the area between the garage and Mehtas property. He is willing to consider a berm at the time of submittal of the landscape plans. Kim Tam, 14297 Saddle Mountain Drive, thanked the Chans for the changes. However, he was disappointed with the outdoor barbecue area facing his property and the tower element which is the same as previously proposed. He would like to see the roof line to follow the contour. He presented photos of a filled in area from story pole to story pole as possibly seen from his property. Sharad Mehta, 14293 Saddle Mountain Drive, noted that the Chans have made some good changes although the house looks as bulky as before. He discussed his view, suggesting moving the house 30 to 40 feet further back and making the house "L" shaped. Chairman Schreiner noted the many constraints of the lot (septic field, view easement, emergency road). Commissioner Gottlieb asked if the landscaping and berming would help mitigate the Mehta's view of the house. June Dean, 27677 Lupine Road, neighbor, noted that she can still see the story poles from her property and the second story will look into her bedrooms and pool area. She discussed the loss of privacy with the Ben-Artzi house on one side. She will lose privacy on the other side of her property now with the Chan house. She did not feel the tower was necessary. Chairman Schreiner noted there were no shrubs or planting on the Mehta's property which would help with screening. Ms. Dean still felt drainage was a concern as it related to her property. Although the pool is not being proposed now, it will be proposed in the future Sharyn Brown, 27673 Lupine Road, was concerned with water runoff. This was addressed by the City Engineer. She asked about improvements on Lupine Road. Mr. Peterson commented that no piping is being proposed. Sheet flow will send water in different directions which is what the Town encourages. The drainage being proposed is the best they can do. I Planning Commission Minutes APPROVED 9/28/94 September 14, 1994 Page 4 4WJohn Komo, 23225 Ravensbury Avenue, applicant's representative, discussed drainage noting that the driveway acts as an intersect. The remaining water will go down the back. They will disperse the water at the building line. Commissioner Comiso noted permits cannot be pulled until drainage is reviewed and approved to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. Mr. Komo further discussed the barbecue area which is not a full service kitchen area and 29 feet below the Tams sight view. The tower is under the height limits. John Dukes, 27783 Lupine Road, was surprised at the size of the story poles from the emergency road. He did not like the tower as he felt it would infringe on the Mehta's privacy. He also thought this lot was a place where a one story home was appropriate. CLOSED PUBLIC HEARING The Commission discussed the driveway, drainage, barbecue/kitchen area, and lowering the house and the tower. Ms. Niles commented that the project has been re- designed several time. To ask the applicants to lower the house even more is not recommended. Chairman Schreiner discussed the concern with visibility and suggested the exterior color of the house be dark gray or brown so that it better fits the site. It was clarified that Commissioner Gottlieb was present at the previous meetings regarding the Lands of Chan and/or listened to the tapes from the meetings. Commissioner 4WCheng discussed what can be accomplished with good landscaping. Commissioner Cheng felt the applicants had listened to all of the comments from the neighbors and had made many changes in response to the concerns. She felt the house fits well into the neighborhood. Commissioner McMahon agreed noting that the applicants have done more than the Commission had asked in revising the plans. Commissioner Gottlieb agreed that the changes that were made were good, however she sympathized with the neighbors. Commissioner Stutz recommended the landscape plan to return to the Planning Commission instead of to the Site Development Committee. Chairman Schreiner noted that condition 3 should be amended to state that the Saddle Mountain pathway should be rebuilt (#14). Ms. Niles noted that this condition was a recommendation of the pathway committee. She asked if there was a pathway committee representative present. Katy Stella, 27975 Via Ventana, pathway committee representative, reported that they would like that pathway rebuilt. Ms. Niles commented that one of the things that the Commission was concerned with was bringing a new condition to the property owner at the last minute. Commissioner Gottlieb felt this was discussed at the previous meeting. Further discussion ensued regarding the planting in the view easement. It was felt this could be reviewed with the landscape plan. Planning Commission Minutes APPROVED 9/28/94 September 14,1994 Page 5 f MOTION SECONDED AND PASSED: Motion by Commissioner Comiso and seconded by Commissioner Cheng to approve the Site Development Permit for a new residence with the following changes to the conditions of approval: Condition #3, change "reviewed by the Site Development Committee' to "reviewed by the Planning Commission". Condition #14, second sentence to read'The pathway shall be rebuilt". Condition #4, add "dark gray or brown is recommended for the exterior color of the house". AYES: Chairman Schreiner, Commissioners McMahon, Cheng, Comiso NOES: Commissioners Gottlieb & Stutz ABSENT: Commissioner Doran This item will appear on the City Council consent calendar October 5,1994 5.3 LANDS OF FARRAND, 25731 Deerfield Drive (120 -94 -CDP); A request for a Conditional Development Permit for a minor addition and remodel, and a variance to exceed allowable MDA and MFA. Mrs. Davis introduced this item noting that the area for the proposed deck is enclosed floor area now. There will be no further encroachment into the setback. She was asked the status of Deerfield Drive and why they were not requesting any right-of-way. Mrs. Davis noted that the right-of-way ended at this property. This type of Conditional Development Permit always goes to the Planning Commission for approval. Because this project is technically over the MDA and MFA when doing the calculations based on the size of the lot and the slope, staff does not have the authority to approve the project. Commissioner Comiso asked when the MDA and MFA figures were set on this property. Mrs. Davis noted that the figures on this property were never established. The numbers put in the site data were strictly based on calculations measuring the topography on the site and using the lot area which is a little under a half an acre. Commissioner Comiso noted that since numbers have never been established on this property, she was not sure why they were asked for a variance. She noted that it was up to the Planning Commission and the City Council to establish the MDA and MFA figures. If, at this time, they established the numbers under the Conditional Development Permit, any additional numbers would require a variance. Ms. Niles noted that she had spoken to the City Attorney. The formula is the maximum development area and floor area allowed on the lot. The formula is what brings in the variance. If the Commission feels the numbers proposed fit the lot, they will be the new set numbers allowed. She further discussed approving numbers for the project in front of them now. n Planning Commission Minutes APPROVED 9/28/94 September 14,1994 Page 6 4W Commissioner Stutz requested setting the MDA and MFA figures slightly higher than the proposed numbers so that the applicants have some room for future projects without needing a variance. She felt 6,500 for MDA and 3,400 for MFA would be appropriate. Commissioner McMahon discussed page 2, paragraph 2 of the staff report relating to the height of the structure. OPENED PUBLIC HEARING Steve Aced, 724 Berry Avenue, Los Altos, applicant's representative, discussed the project noting that they were asking to reconfigure the second story. The neighbors uphill have seen the plans and they felt they were acceptable. Stephanie Munoz, 13460 Robleda Road, noted that the house is in a hollow and no one can see the property. She supported the project. She further discussed substandard lots. CLOSED PUBLIC HEARING Further discussion ensued regarding setting development levels without a variance. Ms. Niles explained that in discussions with the City Attorney it is still necessary to 60 request a variance with the ordinance in its current form. Usually MDA and MFA figures are established based on the specific design and constraints of the lot. The Commission can determine the level of development it feels is appropriate for this particular site. She commented that for all Conditional Development Permit lots, the Commission is being consistent in looking at them on a case by case basis for what particular design fits that particular lot. Commissioner Stutz noted that condition #8 was definitely setting the limits on this site. Commissioner Gottlieb noted that half of the house is in the 30 foot setback. In reviewing the variance findings, Chairman Schreiner suggested adding to the first #1 stating "there are exceptional or extraordinary circumstances applicable to the property because the lot is less than a half an acre and there is an existing house and existing development." MOTION SECONDED, AMENDED AND PASSED: Motion by Commissioner Comiso and seconded by Commissioner Stutz to approve application as submitted, adding to Variance Finding #1 "there are exceptional or extraordinary circumstances applicable to the property because the lot is less than half an acre and there is an existing house and existing development", and changing #8 indicating the MDA of 6,500 square feet and the MFA of 3,400 square feet. `7 Planning Commission Minutes APPROVED 9/28/94 September 14,1994 Page 7 4 Chairman Schreiner was not in favor of the higher numbers. She would prefer 6,200 MDA and 3,200 MFA. Commissioner Gottlieb was not as concerned with the development area as much as the floor area. She felt this is a very constrained lot. Commissioner McMahon noted that 6,200 would allow only a 44 square feet increase. AYES: Commissioners McMahon, Cheng, Comiso & Stutz NOES: Chairman Schreiner and Commissioner Gottlieb ABSENT: Commissioner Doran Commissioner Gottlieb noted for the record that she had no objection to the application, however she did not agree with 3,400 square feet of floor area. Commissioner Stutz felt this was one of the most delightful houses in the hills. This item will appear on the City Council consent calendar October 5, 1994 Brief 10 minute break at 9:20 p.m. 5.6 LANDS OF KIM, 12005 Finn Lane (66-94-ZP-SD-GD-VAR); A request for a Site Development Permit for a new residence and pool, and a variance to grade over property lines (lots 5 and 6) and amendment to the Tentative Map for the Finn Subdivision to modify a condition regarding a side setback for Lot 5 (continued 4 from July 27, 1994). Ms. Niles introduced this item noting the applicant provided a letter from his geotechnical consultant to help clarify the soils condition and an extension of the grading plan across property lines to present to the Commission. Chairman Schreiner commented that in a previous meeting with the architect, the Commission noted that they would consider a variance to allow encroachment of a corner of the garage into the 40 foot setback between lots 5 and 6. Rather than a variance, they returned with an amendment rather than having an encroachment to actually having the setback to 30 feet. Ms. Niles explained that they cannot grant a variance from a condition of approval. They can only grant a variance from a standard of the Town. The reason it is a condition amendment is because the subdivision set a condition that there had to be a 40 foot setback on the north property line. What they are asking for is a change to that condition. She further discussed the original conditions of approval for the subdivision. Commissioner Comiso discussed the original application for the subdivision and the built-in flexibility in height but not in the setback. No one at that time had a concern with the setbacks. Chairman Schreiner commented that the Council wanted them to adhere to the 590 and 580 elevations and that the applicant has not asked them for a variance for height. Commissioner Gottlieb asked if they have to change the whole setback. OPENED PUBLIC HEARING Planning Commission Minutes APPROVED 9/28/94 September 14,1994 Page 8 f6 Bob Owen, 445 S. San Antonio Road, Los Altos, applicant's representative, thanked the Commission for all their efforts and felt they have a better design. He noted that the staff report indicated the new pad being proposed at varying elevations from T, 9', and 10 feet below the highest level of the lot currently. The actual cut for the grade outside the house is eight feet which is brought up from the 10 feet. Staff is right noting that they are excavating further for the pad of the house. He further discussed the original grading proposed without a house on lot 5 in excess of 8,000 cu. yds. The new plan shows excavation of 5,560 cu. yds. Lot 6 still remains the same at 2,860 cu. yds. of export. Between the two lots, if they were to do "mass grading', there would be approximately 8,420 cu. yds. to be excavated. Ms. Niles clarified that this would only be for rough grading on lot 5 for the house and rough grading to cross the property lines. She believed the Commission asked for numbers that would include rough grading for the house on lot 6 which she included in the staff report. Before the November 1 moratorium, they plan to export 8,420 cu. yds. Mr. Owen noted that they would be using 20 yard trucks for the export which equals to 421 truck loads which is an improvement over his previous plan. He further discussed #15 on page 3 clarifying on lot 5 that the deepest cut would be eight feet. Commissioner Comiso noted that the new grading plan presented was not compatible with the plan presented in their packets. Ms. Niles noted that the understanding of the Town was that the rough grading for both of the lots would be accomplished at the same time. It was the Town's request that the grading be coordinated between these two lots for the rough grading 4 for the November 1st deadline. She thought this was what the applicant was going to show the Commission. The plan submitted would be if they were only going to grade lot 5 and the transition across the lot line. She noted that the Commission would have to take into consideration that this is not what will occur before November 1st, because right after this application they will be looking at Lands of Finn which is for the rough grading across the lot line and the rough grading of the pad with the final grading to return with the site development permit. The Commission had previously requested to see the total grading in its entirety. Commissioner McMahon understood that what they were going to be asked to approve was the grading of both lots in an expeditious matter to meet the November 1st deadline, and then separately consider lot 5 and then lot 6. Commissioner Comiso noted that when the discussion first started it was with the idea that the Commission would get a good idea of exactly how the bottom lot would end up even with a house on it. This is what was in her packet, however it does not appear to be what they are voting on tonight. Ms. Niles noted that both applications (5.4 and 5.5) are separate applications and both cross the property line for the grading. Commissioner Comiso noted that in order to look at them separately, they first needed to look at them as a whole. Ms. Niles noted that what Mr. Owen was trying to show them was that if he was the only one grading, it would only be 8,420 cu. yds. of export. With the grading of both lots the export would be 11,500 cu. yds. Planning Commission Minutes APPROVED 9/28/94 September 14,1994 Page 9 Commissioner McMahon noted that in their two meetings it was clear that they were going to permit across -property line grading to the applicant's benefit if the Commission could see the whole picture. She now has the whole picture and would like to look at the 12,000 cu. yds. of excavation. If they resolve the grading on the two sites they can then possibly say the house on lot 5 is good and the house on lot 6 is not up yet. It was determined that the plan presented this evening was not needed. Mr. Owen noted that on their landscape plan, besides the master bathroom tub, 20-30 foot high trees are shown. The neighbors were concerned that the trees will block their view eventually. He stated that no trees will be planted on the lot on that side that would inhibit the neighbor's view. He noted that the berm has been eliminated so water would not be trapped on site. Commissioner Comiso asked Mr. Owen, on page 3, #14, if he has submitted a plan as requested as she was concerned with the weight over the roadways and whether flag men were needed. Mother item of concern was that the number of trucks used for an eight hour day was not acceptable. Suggested truck hauling times would be from 9:00 a.m. to 4:00 p.m. Mr. Owen noted he previously mentioned that he would like to work with staff regarding truck traffic and flag men. Ms. Niles noted the reason the Commission requested a plan was to see if the excavation could even be accomplished by the November 1st deadline. 4 Mr. Owen noted that he had profiles of the two lots. The Commission agreed to discussed the grading on lots 5 and 6 first. Gary Mignano, G & G Design, 1585 The Alameda, San Jose, project architect, discussed the profile of lots 5 and 6 showing the extent of all of the grading and both proposed houses under the maximum height restriction. Commissioner McMahon asked why, at the property line, they are not returning up; why keep so flat for so long? She asked why they do not make a basin for themselves and come back up whenever possible, immediately returning up after utilizing the driveway. The driveway is about eight feet underground. Commissioner Gottlieb discussed staying with the natural contours to reduce the grading. She also questioned the fact that the house is down a foot. She asked if he could add the foot to the house instead of taking it down an extra foot which would mean raising the pad a foot and utilize the full height. Mr. Mignano felt this could be accomplished. This would increase the slope of the driveway slightly. He also had no problem with the areas between the properties minimizing the cut and carving it differently. Commissioner Gottlieb further discussed screening with natural grade (rolling berm of approximately two feet between the properties). The Commission discussed the visibility from La Loma. Commissioner McMahon discussed the reduction of excavation of lot 5 by a third. They have not had an 4 opportunity to work with the parties on lot 6 and their excavation of 7,000 cu. yds. She Planning Commission Minutes APPROVED 9/28/94 September 14, 1994 Page 10 V would like to see similar improvements on lot 6. Ms. Niles noted that with the current suggestions for raising the pad and the transition across the lot line to be natural and not a berm effect, raised up a few feet. This will already reduce the grading on lot 6. The additional grading down in the house area can be fine tuned considerably from the rough grading plan. Ms. Niles noted that Mr. Owen will not be grading the pad on lot 6 but the property owner of that lot. What they are coordinating is the transition across the lot line. She noted if they were asked to add another two feet at that transition, that will raise that area. She noted that if they could add the two feet and gradually come back down the slope, then there is quite a bit of grading being eliminated on the rise behind the pool of lot 6. It was clarified that the Commission cannot condition lot 6 with lot 5's application. The amount of excavation at the property line would now be down approximately four and a half feet. The Commission discussed the house, the siting, and the driveway. Chairman Schreiner noted that the rotation of the house was a better siting of the house from the original plan. It was felt one of the major issues on lot 5 was drainage and the requirement of the original conditions of approval on the subdivision for a detention basin (#14). Chairman Schreiner asked if this was part of the conditions of approval. Mr. Peterson noted that the condition on the subdivision was actually designed as part of the subdivision improvements but because of the lack of area to put in a basin it was designed as an underground facility. An underground facility is not really maintainable. Based on a system which could not be maintained by the Town, it was decided at that time to eliminate the detention basin from the design and split the drainage; part of the drainage crossing Prospect and heading down the hill. The other amount of water, when it reaches a certain level, actually heads east on Prospect towards Stonebrook. Instead of placing a detention basin in the storm drainage system for the subdivision, the water was split. The applicant has worked with staff regarding the drainage. What they are showing is essentially what was requested which is split the drainage, sending half to La Loma and the other half towards Finn Lane just as the ridge separated it. In this way you are not concentrating it all in one direction. Also, as part of the conditions, there is a swale on the north side of Prospect were there is some erosion. Mr. Owen noted that he had met with Sid Hubbard regarding a regular puddle on La Loma where the bend is located noting the suggestion to valley it south to eliminate that puddle. Mr. Peterson noted the drainage would sheet over the pathway. The Lands of Schwartz was also discussed by the City Engineer regarding drainage. Mr. Owen noted acceptance of the conditions of approval. Stephanie Munoz, 13460 Robleda Road, commented on the project which was discussed further by Chairman Schreiner. CLOSED PUBLIC HEARING Planning Commission Minutes APPROVED 9/26/94 September 14, 1994 Page 11 4W Discussion ensued. Commissioner Cheng noted in her discussion with Dawn Hill on Finn Lane, she indicated acceptance of the plan. Commissioner Stutz felt condition #17 was to restrictive. She suggested coming in off of La Loma, lining the (empty) trucks up, taking off from Prospect, which would allow the truck hauling to go faster. The City Engineer noted condition #17 was at his request. When you have that volume of trucks, it is a good idea to have traffic control. He suggested, if the Commission did not agree with this condition, to at least leave it to his discretion for control. It was suggested adding to the condition "access to the construction of this project shall be left to the discretion of the City Engineer." Commissioner McMahon noted the discussion of the items noted in the staff report which have not as yet been submitted or needed to be addressed: #17 on page 4,: written document addressing the exported material and where it will be taken, #15 regarding the Cotton report and the Jo Crosby letter submitted this evening. Ms. Niles noted that condition #17 would address this concern. It was suggested adding a condition regarding granting an amendment to grade over property lines to read as follows.: 24. Condition amendment on the original tentative map approved to allow the north property line setback at 30 feet rather than 40 feet. Change #19, second sentence to read "The pathway shall be separated from the construction site by a silt fence, to the satisfaction of staff, that shall remain in place until the close of the project." Add to #13 "raising pad to the ceiling limit (590) to minimize the grading. The excavation shall not be greater than four and a half feet." Mr. Peterson noted that the subdivision is in a sanitary sewer reimbursement area. He suggested adding to #21 that all fees shall be paid prior to issuance of building permits including sanitary sewer reimbursement fees." MOTION SECONDED AND PASSED: Motion by Commissioner Comiso and seconded by Commissioner McMahon to approve the site development permit for a new residence and pool, and variance to grade over property lines (lot 5 and lot 6) and amendment to the tentative subdivision map for the Finn Subdivision to modify a condition regarding a side setback for lot 5 with the conditions of approval with changes to #'s 13, 17, 19, 21 and adding #24 as stated above, by staff and on this tape. AYES: Chairman Schreiner, Commissioners Gottlieb, Cheng, Comiso, Stutz and McMahon NOES: None ABSENT: Commissioner Doran Planning Commission Minutes APPROVED 9/28/94 September 14, 1994 Page 12 4 This item will appear on the City Council consent calendar for October 5,1994. The condition amendment approval will appear on the City Council agenda October 5,1994. 5.7 LANDS OF FINN, 12001 Finn Lane (60 -94 -SD); A request for approval of a grading plan for Lot 6 of the Finn Subdivision (continued from July 27,1994). Staff had nothing further to add to the staff report. Ms. Niles noted that the approval is for the rough grading which includes the tentative pad for the house. As discussed on the last application, there will be a different transition across the lot lines that will raise it some what and should raise the grade from the back of the retaining wall at the pool. The Commission should discuss whether they want the pad that they are proposing for the house to be raised and the pad they are proposing for the pool to be raised or neither or both. OPENED PUBLIC HEARING Gary Kohlsaat, 501 N. Santa Cruz Avenue, Los Gatos, architect, noted that the Commission should look at lot 6 differently than lot 5, one difference being that lot 6 is sided by three roads and one neighboring property line. He discussed the grading needed for the pool, siting the house and the privacy from La Loma. In order to achieve the back yard area that the owner requested, grading is needed. The condition of 4 approval of the subdivision regarding no piping of water necessitated not raising the house in certain areas as the water has to flow around the house to get to the street. They can only lift the house on one end. The Commission discussed approval of a site development permit for grading. They asked why this could not wait and be brought back with the new residence application. Ms. Niles noted the issue was that the property owners would like to at least do the rough grading before November 1st, otherwise the rough grading will not be accomplished until the spring, at which time they would have massive trucks now and again in the spring. She can already see a reduction in amounts of grading from the previous approval. Commissioner Comiso would like to approve the grading with the house plan. She would suggest discussion and possible approval of the variance to grade over property lines leaving the remainder to be approved with the site development permit of the house plan. It is very hard to approve a grading plan which is not in front of them. The City Engineer explained the grading moratorium. Again, the Commission reviewed the profile of the properties. Mr. Kohlsaat noted that the maximum cut would be eight feet from where the house goes out to the patio then coming up three feet to the pool patio. The pool terrace is the eight foot cut (the maximum cut). Commissioner McMahon noted that if they raised the pool four feet they would be accomplishing a one third reduction in exporting. Mr. Kohlsaat agreed there would be room to work on the pool. Commissioner McMahon noted that the Commissioners were asking for less excavation which implies less retaining wall, not more retaining walls 4 Planning Commission Minutes APPROVED 9/28/94 September 14, 1994 Page 13 Commissioner Comiso asked why they were recontouring the entire corner on La Loma and Prospect. Mr. Kohlsaat responded it was to maintain a four foot high retaining wall and not an eight foot retaining wall against the house. Commissioner Comiso felt they were recontouring the lot against the contour which she did not agree with. Ms. Niles noted that if the grade came to the wall of the house recontouring may not be needed. The only way not to recontour would be to have the grade come to the wall of the house rather then to allow a walk -around the house. Commissioner Gottlieb asked if there was any way to reduce the roof line to 18 feet. Mr. Kohlsaat discussed this aspect and presented an elevation plan showing the center portion of the house at the 580 level and the rest of the house being lower. He noted that there was some room for cut. The City Engineer noted that he would be happy to work with the applicant regarding any drainage concerns. Mr. Kohlsaat asked if it would be helpful to see the numbers of the total grading versus the numbers suggested by the grading across the lot line without a house. The Commission agreed it would be helpful. He noted that the total export on the site was 7, 045 cu. yds. including the pool. The grading across without the house as proposed by Mr. Owen was 2,860 cu. yds. which means they are actually asking for 5,185 cu. yds., not taking into consideration the reductions previously discussed. The La Loma/Prospect corner of the house was a concern. Commissioner Stutz felt they should change the description of the permit. They should add after "lot 5 and lot 6 of the Finn subdivision" and rough�grading on lot 6. Commissioner Gottlieb asked if they would consider raising the pool elevation two to three feet? Mr. Kohlsaat thought it would not be acceptable. She felt eight feet of grading for a pool site was excessive. Ms. Niles noted that the staff will take under consideration all the comments from the Commission and work with the applicant to come up with a rough grading plan that will not jeopardize a height for the pool and house pad that will be preferable to everyone . CLOSED PUBLIC HEARING MOTION SECOND AND PASSED: Motion by Commissioner Comiso and seconded by Commissioner Stutz to approve the site development permit and variance to grade across a property lines between lots 5 and 6 of the Finn Subdivision and the rough grading on lot 6 as conditioned by the comments made to staff. AYES: Chairman Schreiner, Commissioners Cheng, Comiso, Stutz, McMahon & Gottlieb NOES: None ABSENT: Commissioner Doran This item will appear on the City Council consent calendar for October 5,1994. Planning Commission Minutes APPROVED 9/26/94 September 14,1994 Page 14 PASSED BY CONSENSUS: To extend the meeting beyond 11:30 p.m. 5.4 LANDS OF NAGPAL, 28555 Matadero Creek Lane (99-94-ZP-SD; A request for a Site Development Permit for a secondary dwelling unit. Staff had nothing further to add to the staff report. OPENED PUBLIC HEARING Kurt Anderson, 780 Marx Avenue, Campbell, architect, in response to a letter in the staff report from the Mitchells noted proposed changes: lower the finish floor height of the second dwelling unit two feet; reduce the deck on the south side six feet (from 10 feet to four feet); reduce exterior plate height from 10 feet to nine feet; minimize window area on the south side (facing the Mitchell property); and reduce the overall height of the structure three and a half to four feet total. He plans to decrease the attic height by increasing the ceiling height of living space. Chairman Schreiner noted the secondary dwelling should not be dominant as it will be very visible from Country Way. Commissioner Gottlieb stated the fence should not cross through the conservation easement. It should be inside the property line and conservation easement boundry line. Commissioner Stutz will not support the application with extensive decking covered by a roof as she did not feel this was appropriate for a secondary unit. Commissioner McMahon agreed. She also noted the classical design, however it was not secondary to the main unit. The Commission noted that the secondary unit cannot move closer to the Mitchells as it would be too close to the oak tree dripline; the pathway should be shown on the plan; suggested removing the columns; and suggested going to grade level and dig the unit in at one end. MOTION AND PASSED: Motion by Commissioner Comiso and seconded by Commissioner McMahon to continue the application for a redesign to the September 28th meeting. AYES: Chairman Schreiner, Commissions Stutz, McMahon, Gottlieb, Comiso & Cheng NOES: None ABSENT: Commissioner Doran 5.5 NEXTEL COMMUNICATIONS, INC. (LANDS OF BURCHARD) 2285 Old Page Mill Road (Gerth Lane (108 -94 -CUP); A request for a Conditional Use Permit for construction and operation of an unmanned telecommunications transceiving facility including antennas and an equipment shed. Planning Commission Minutes APPROVED 9/28/94 September 14,1994 Page 15 Mrs. Davis introduced this item noting that the second and third sentence in condition #7 should be deleted. Commissioner Comiso requested the MDA and MFA figures on the site and she would like to see the antennas hidden more. She mentioned a previous proposed facility on Alta Lane which had been denied. However it was not denied because of a hazard. It was denied because the neighbors did not want it in their neighborhood. Chairman Schreiner noted this application appeared to be a commercial enterprise and could be hazardous. Commissioner Gottlieb asked if there was any liability connected to the Town by approving this project. Commissioner McMahon discussed item 2 on page 4 regarding height of the pole. It was noted that there have been no complaints relating to Cellular One facility. OPENED PUBLIC HEARING Laura Albright, Smart SMR of California, Inc., 475 Fourteenth Street, Oakland, Nextel representative, discussed the project noting that the antennas work by line -of -sight. They were tested at 30 feet. Mike Macewicz, design engineer, noted that they tried not to destroy any trees. If they cut a hole through the canopy, it might not be as effective. Anytime you send a signal through trees, the signal deteriorates. He further discussed different types of antennas noting that the whip antennas radiate 360 degrees. Using panels in place of whip L antennas would decrease the overall height to 38 feet, rather than 49 feet. He further 4/ discussed possible interference noting they try to address problems before installation. Bill Hammett, consulting engineer who prepared the evaluation of radio frequency exposure conditions report, summarized the findings of his report. He noted that exposures are 1000 times less than that of a microwave oven. Greg Guerrazzi, Nextel representative, discussed the minimum height of 36 feet. Chairman Schreiner noted some concern about safety and about this being a commercial enterprise. She would like more information about the Alta Lane site denial. Commissioner Stutz commented all they could do is go on the best information available. Commissioner Comiso was not against putting the facility in the proposed location, however she would like to have the antennas less obvious. The visibility of the antennas was discussed. Tom Burchard, 2285 Old Page Mills Road, noted that the pole will be hidden by Pine trees on the site. There are also some Eucalyptus trees at the property line that are higher than the pole and antennas. He noted the property cannot be seen from I-280. 4 Planning Commission Minutes APPROVED 9/26/94 September 14,1994 Page 16 CLOSED PUBLIC 14EARING PASSED BY CONSENSUS: To continue the application to the October 12th meeting in order to form a subcommittee (Comiso, Stutz to include comments from Rick Ellinger) to review the following: photos from other sites; drawings of the building and poles (cross section); the placement of story poles; screening; data on different heights of signals (computer generated data); other antenna designs; and MDA and MFA figures. 6. NEW BUSINESS 6.1 Procedures for enforcing the completion of landscape requirements and use of landscape deposits. The Environmental Design and Protection Committee is putting together a list of landscaping costs. This information will be brought back to the Commission when information completed. 6.2 Town Adopted Color Board. Continued. 6.3 Discussion of Planning Commission meeting time. Ms Niles noted that each year this subject is discussed. She noted that the City Council meetings start at 6:00 p.m. s She asked if anyone would consider an earlier starting time. The Commissioners were not in favor of starting any earlier. They would be interested in limiting the number of public hearing items. Suggestions for future topics for New Business were: pathway in -lieu fees; and driveways in setbacks. OLD BUSINESS 7.1 General Plan Elements -Schedule for work sessions (continued). The Planning Commission scheduled a work session for October 20 at 5:30 p.m. for the Conservation and Open Space Elements to the General Plan. Planning Commission Minutes APPROVED 9/28/94 September 14, 1994 Page 17 4 8. APPROVAL OF MINUTES 8.1 Approval of the July 27,1994 Minutes. PASSED BY CONSENSUS: To approve the July 27 minutes with the following changes: Page 1, adding 27975 Via Ventana to the list of neighbors on Via Ventana who experienced sewer problems. Page 11, Motion seconded and failed vote on the Lands of Kim should be as follows: Ayes: Commissioners Cheng, Comiso & Stutz Noes: Chairman Schreiner, Commissioners McMahon & Gottlieb 9. REPORT FROM THE SITE DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE MEETING OF AUGUST 9. 16. AND 23.1994 9.1 LANDS OF SOMPS, 25400 Becky Lane; A request for a Site Development Permit for a pool and decking plan. Approved with conditions . 9.2 LANDS OF FLING, 12585 Miraloma Way; A request for a Site L Development Permit for a landscape plan. Approved with conditions 0r' August 9,1994. 9.3 LANDS OF CHEN,14265 Berry Hill Court; A request for a Site Development Permit for a pool, spa, hardscape, trellis and gazebo plan. Approved with conditions August 16,1994. 9.4 LANDS OF NOGHREY, 27870 Fawn Creek Court; A request for a Site Development Permit for Grading Modifications and a landscape plan. Approved with conditions August 23, 2994. 10. ADTOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned by consensus at 1:00 a. m. Respectfully submitted, Lani Lonbergeerr `' Planning Secretary