Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout12/01/1994Minutes of a Regular Adjourned Meeting Approved 12/14/94 Town of Los Altos Hills PLANNING COMMISSION Council cc: Cas; December 1,1994, 5:00 P.M. cambers, 26379 Fremont Road 1. ROLL CAI i AND PLEDGE OF Al LEGIAN Planning Commission meeting was called to order at 5:20 p.m. in the Council Chambers at Town Hall. Present: Chairman Schreiner, Commissioners Cheng, Stutz, Doran (left at 9:10 p.m.), McMahon & Gottlieb Staff: Linda Niles, Planning Director; Sheryl Kolf, Assistant Engineer; Lani Lonberger, Planning Secretary 2. PRESENTATIONS FROM THE FLOOR None 3. PUBLIC HEARINGS 3.1 LANDS OF LOHR, 24012 Oak Knoll Circle (lot 20), (162-94-ZP-SD-GD); A request for a Site Development Permit for a new residence (continued from November 9 and 30,1994). This application was continued from the regular meeting of November 30th to allow the applicant to present new renderings as requested by the Planning Commission. OPENED PUBLIC HEARING Steve Lohr, 586 Lagunita Drive, Stanford, presented revised plans showing a full step down foundation on the side elevations. He discussed the site plan noting the reduction of grading to the rear portion. The reduction in fill is now 1,500 c.y. of import versus figures presented at the last meeting of 2,700 c.y. of import (reduction of 1,200 c.y.). The majority of the fill is now in the front where they need it for the driveway. There is very little fill across the back portion (shown clearly on page 2 of the plans). Planning Commission Minutes Approved 12/14/94 December 1, 1994 4 Page 2 The Commission reviewed the revised plans presented by Mr. Lohr. Commissioner McMahon discussed page 2 of the plan and the crawl space under both levels of the floor. Mr. Lohr noted that the crawl space at the 506 elevation portion was three feet. The crawl space below the 505 portion is six feet. She asked Mr. Lohr why they did not start the slope at the front wall instead of at the middle of the house. Mr. Lohr responded that at the front portion of the house, they are on a flatter portion so they are working with the natural grade. There was some fill under the house because of the driveway above, and already having two levels of retaining walls. To keep the house from being completely covered by retaining walls they did some fill under the house. Commissioner McMahon questioned why they were filling. Mr. Lohr noted that at location of the two retaining walls, they need to get some slope between the lower retaining wall and the house so they still have some level area for planting. Also they wanted to keep some level area there so water can drain around to the side. Commissioner McMahon understood what they were doing, keeping the front of the house level with a little fill. She asked, down hill from this section, why fill anything? Mr. Lohr responded this was just good engineering practice for support for the foundation. Mr. Jerry Lohr, J. Lohr Properties, commented when they do any filling they do it on the level so they come up in benches. This was done behind the front foundation. They always start with the fill from the bottom up. They would like to have a bench behind �, the front foundation. Commissioner McMahon noted that after they returned to natural grade, they do not need to continue to support something because it is founded on nature grade. Import does not abut a fill after natural grade. She could understand fill for the drive and the retaining walls, and getting the levelness in front of the house for a pleasant entry into the house. She noted that the front foundation is going to be founded in natural grade and does not need additional help. Mr. Lohr discussed further illustrating on plans noting the house is supported on natural grade by piers. Steve Lohr commented that the existing grade for the flat bench was originally put in there for Dr. Saah's road access many, many years ago. This area is not as strong as any type of fill that they would be putting in. Any type of fill they would put in there is structurally stronger than the existing bench material that is part of the existing grade (engineered fill). Commissioner McMahon was hoping that the grade would be kept the same, not creating benches then sit on them or penetrating them with piers. She wanted the house to step down, following the grade . Mr. Jerry Lohr noted that there was a major aesthetic reason from their point of view. In his 30 years of building, the easy thing to do would be not to put any fill in the back. However, aesthetically from the rear, the house is not nearly as attractive once the fill in the back has been properly landscaped. If you looked at the house from the rear with no fill you could have as much as 12 feet coming out of the ground in a single story wall. Commissioner McMahon noted that they are wanting to put a flat lot house on the lot, then saying they have a 12 foot problem because of the hill. She suggested that they design to suit the hill rather than say they want a flat lot Planning Commission Minutes Approved 12/14/94 December 1, 1994 Page 3 house and therefore they have a 12 foot problem. Mr. Jerry Lohr discussed the design of the house, not wanting a two story look or mass. Mr. Steve Lohr noted that at no point does the house exceed the maximum height of 27 feet from existing grade. The maximum exposure would be 26'6" from natural grade. CLOSED PUBLIC HEARING Ms. Niles requested that when the Commission is looking at the issues being brought up with stepping the house down the site and mitigating the views from off-site to the back of the house, in their discussion to consider whether the Town standards intended that a one story house be stepped in the center if it is only 35 to 39 feet in depth. They are setting the house into the site, however, there is not a second floor to step down. Just by the design of the lot, coming from the road to the driveway, to the entry, to the back porch, is that an adequate step for the total design of the project or do they really mean that even a one story house needs to separate floors and step down. In addition, when they are looking at the rear view for the bulk and mass, are they increasing bulk and mass? She did not feel the mass was increased by much because it is a one story house. She further discussed the limit they placed on the under floor space that would be visible on the Saddle Mountain house and also the Moon Lane second unit. They were, at the time, concerned with the extra expanse of under area that they could not adequately bring landscape up to mitigate views of the structure. This could be considered in the Commissions discussion. Chairman Schreiner noted that the project has a two story feeling, from the rear, but not from the front. Commissioner Stutz noted this is what the Commission had asked from the applicant at the previous meeting. She felt the applicant had done a good job on the back area, making it look as though it is dropping down. Commissioner Doran commented that the Commission specifically asked the applicant to bring back a rendering showing what a step down foundation would look like on this house. This is a small house. When the lot was created there was never any consideration given to the amount of fill brought back onto the lot. She felt the applicant has satisfied what she wanted to see, the appearance of a stepped down house. She commended the applicant for reducing the amount of fill from the previous design. Commissioner Gottlieb was concerned with the driveway and the garage design. The assistant engineer noted that this was not the only way to design, however she felt it was the best way for the site. Ms. Kolf had reviewed the plans and did not see any other option. Commissioner Gottlieb normally does not like to see a driveway follow the road all the way in the front of the house. The lot is an established lot in Town and has to be allowed to be built on. She did not feel the house, as yet, is what she would consider a step down house, however the applicant has mitigated the fill and the design does give an appearance of a second story house stepping down from the road. She would not like A, to set a precedence in the subdivision or in Town that this is a true step down foundation design. Planning Commission Minutes Approved 12/14/94 December 1, 1994 Page 4 Commissioner Cheng agreed that the design presented is what was asked of the applicant. Chairman Schreiner noted that she would have liked to see the house follow the contours down more. It is a small house on a constrained lot. Commissioner Doran noted that if they have more lots like this come in and the Commission is concerned with step down foundations, they really need to be very specific to the applicants regarding what they are looking for and what a step down means on a single story home as Ms. Niles pointed out (single story following the contours down the hill). Ms. Niles noted that even though they have an ordinance that says step the house down the lot, she was really thinking more of two story houses or broader one story houses. This is a narrow house trying to fit on a bench. She discussed the previous design noting that what they have now is definitely a much better reduction in the fill but they have the bulk and mass of a two story house when it is only a one story house fitting into the site just as well. There are several different options as to how the ordinance is interpreted or how they wanted to see the design. Commissioner McMahon's comments are really the letter of the law, stepping down the site. RE -OPENED PUBLIC HEARING Jean Struthers, Environmental Design and Protection Committee, was glad to see the fill ( reduced. She asked if there was a possibility of benching the fill in its final contours so that the planting that will be required for mitigating the back side would have a shelf, making it easier to establish plants rather than a steep bank. Commissioner Doran noted that two weeks ago the applicant had a flat deck area with outdoor living space which the Commission had asked the applicant to remove. Jerry Lohr commented that any benching done without retaining walls would take additional fill. He would rather not have retaining walls. CLOSED PUBLIC HEARING Commissioner Gottlieb felt it was much nicer to have the house below the road. The fill has been reduced although this is not a true step down house. She would not normally vote for the driveway as design, however the engineering staff has indicated the design was best for the site. MOTION SECONDED AND PASSED: Motion by Stutz and seconded by Commissioner Doran to approve the Site Development Permit for a new residence. AYES: Chairman Schreiner, Commissioners Gottlieb, Cheng, Stutz & Doran NOES: Commissioner McMahon This item is subject to a 22 day appeal period. C Planning Commission Minutes Approved 12/14/94 December 1, 1994 Page 5 3.2 LANDS OF BROCKWAY, 25525 Moody Road (88 -94 -TM); A request for a six lot subdivision and certification of a proposed Negative Declaration (continued from October 26, November 9 and 19, 1994). Chairman Schreiner noted that there was some confusion regarding whether this was a work session or a public hearing. Ms. Niles commented that at the November 9th Planning Commission meeting it was adjourned to the November 18th site meeting which would be an informal walking of the site, identifying the issues and this meeting would be a re -opening of the public hearing to make a determination, if they could. The application has already been continued three times. They would need the applicant's agreement for another continuance. Commission options are approval, denial or continuance. The applicant provided a 5 lot overlay and a handout showing lot acreage, percentage of slope, LUF, MDA and MFA figures for the proposed 6lot subdivision. OPENED PUBLIC HEARING Beverly Brockway, 23215 Mora Glen Drive, Los Altos, discussed the staff report under "DISCUSSION", questioning the following: #2, appropriate extent for the conservation easement of the swale (felt 20 feet adequate); #3, "an arborist should be required to be on site during the thinning and during the construction of the subdivision improvements." Mrs. Brockway felt this should be clarified "near significant oak trees #11, regarding the water, noted that only one lot would be using the water tank. The potential owners may want a smaller water tank or the well meets the requirements and standards. She suggested that the well be maintained or be abandoned per Santa Clara Water District. (Condition #24 addresses wells.) Commissioner Stutz felt this was something that would be decided at the time of Site Development. "The water tank and working well not be closed or be abandoned per Santa Clara Water District standards" would be acceptable. Mrs. Brockway further discussed to the Conditions of Approval, specifically #25, leaving the renters and house on the property; #31, deleting "lot 2'; #32, change "lots 5 and 6" to "lots 1 and 6"; and #32, not restricting the construction of a pool in the Habitation Set Back. CLOSED PUBLIC HEARING The Commission discussed the 5 lot overlay compared to the existing 6 lot plan, Commissioner McMahon s notes from the November 19th meeting and the Negative Declaration. Commissioner Gottlieb noted that in the conservation easement, lawful fences are being allowed when it was previously noted that the conservation easement along the swale was going to be the area for movement of wildlife. It would be helpful to clarify that the swale easement is not intended to have any fencing. In discussing the Negative Declaration, it was clarified that the Negative Declaration does not approve anything. The Negative Declaration is a statement and an analysis of Planning Commission Minutes Approved 12/14/94 December 1, 1994 Page 6 all the issues of impacts based on the design of the site and the surrounding area. When the Commission certifies the Negative Declaration, they are certifying that on this project (as designed), all of the significant impacts have been identified, and analyzed and proposed mitigation has been put in place, if necessary, to come up with a project that is not a significant impact due to the mitigation that is being proposed. The Tentative Map approves the 6lot subdivision. If the Commission feels that 6 lots cannot be mitigated as the Negative Declaration states, that is a statement. Further discussion ensued regarding the 5 lot overlay, the site visit of November 19th and a map provided by Commissioner Stutz. The Commission noted that they could not look at conservation easements until they decided upon the number of lots. The Commission discussed the 6lot configuration based on the November 19th site visit. The conservation easements by lot were discussed; two on Altamont and Moody Road in road -right-of-way which Commissioner Gottlieb felt should be expanded; and including the heritage trees on Moody Road to prevent a straight line conservation easement (corner of lot 5). Staff previously recommended not having little pockets of conservation easements but that they be joined. Commissioner Gottlieb noted that going down along the swale and onto lot 4, she would include all the massive oak trees down along the trail until reaching another set of oak trees (to also be included in the conservation easement), bringing the conservation easement down the swale. On lot 6, she would bring down the conservation easement straight along Altamont until reaching the oak trees that are around the cul-de-sac, then down across the cul-de-sac and around the other smaller set of trees. They will accept the arborist recommendation to thin the oak trees within the conservation easement. This will be done at time of subdivision (applicant's responsibility). The conservation easement should be placed according to the driplines because, even though oak trees are being thinned out, the other oak trees are expected to grow. The conservation easement should be on the future driplines. Commissioner Stutz would like to see some of the trees, not just oaks, left until the time of Site Development. Staff has provided a way of accomplishing this as noted in the staff report, item 3, page 2. Chairman Schreiner asked if the placement of these conservation easements as outlined would restrict the actual physical placement on the ground of development area of 6 lots. Commissioner Stutz noted that the City Engineer mentioned that he was not satisfied with the location of the swale and felt there will need to be some changes. He also felt a swale was not a logical lot divider although this was a minor swale. The majority of the conservation easements seem to fall on lots 3,4 and 6. The conservation easements will be inside the setback lines on lot 3 which would severely constrain the house. Commissioner McMahon provided a plan indicating a possible house placement, showing whether each lot is treated fairly with a 6lot design. Further discussion ensued regarding LUF, MDA and MFA; restricting the size of the homes; restricting the development area; MDA not being decreased by a conservation easement; and the development area and floor area may be reduced due to the �ar constraints on the lot (conservation easements, swale, etc.) placed in deed restriction, CC&R's, and conditions of approval. Commissioner Stutz requested not excluding horse Planning Commission Minutes Approved 12/14/94 December 1, 1994 Page 7 stables in the subdivision. The CC&R's will be reviewed by the Town and the City Attorney, addressing the issues discussed. Chairman Schreiner felt many of the lots can be maxed out. She was concerned with the amount of outside development area (pools, tennis courts or any impervious surface), and how much would be allowed. This is the reason she asked for the development figures. For example, lot 3 has a house size of 7,000 square feet, one story, still fitting within the boundaries of the setbacks, with a patio and pool area including the driveway, a development area of 10,000 + square feet, leaving a remainder of approximately 6,000 square feet of development area. Because of the conservation easement constraints, it would be difficult to use the remaining development area. Pools in Human Habitat Setbacks were discussed and also the possibility of keeping the Altamont area rural (agricultural). Keeping driveways out of setbacks was discussed noting the houses will be 60 feet from each other. There could be a similar situation with 5 lots, extending even farther with larger houses. With a 5 lot subdivision, there will be much larger homes. If they condition each lot with the conservation easements and all other conditions the Commission felt appropriate, 6lots works very nicely. The Commission discussed the 6lot subdivision as presented with possible home sites. The 6lot subdivision with the conservation easements would provides mini forests as a border. It was felt that the houses proposed were very creative. Commissioner Stutz felt shared driveways do not work. Everyone should have their own driveway. Commissioner McMahon asked who owns the driveway between lots 1 and 6. The response was lot 5. Ray Miller, architect, noted that the panhandle driveway being discussed could move a little towards lot 1, then the driveway to lot 6 could be separate. Since they modified the lot lines and moved the cul-de-sac down towards Foothill College, there is enough room to come in with both of the driveways and not come underneath the driplines of the trees. Chairman Schreiner's objection was that a considerable amount of development area cannot be used which should be made clear. Commissioners Gottlieb suggested a deed restriction to restrict the development. This would reduce the development area on each lot or the house sizes. They could use the development area figure after deducting the conservation easements. Commissioner Doran noted that what was not seen on the new lot line plan was the groupings of new trees between the houses which were added for screening. Each house design included a four car garage. The architect was complimented on his design. A poll of the Commissioners was taken for a 6lot subdivision; Commissioners Doran, Gottlieb, Cheng, and McMahon preferred a 6lot subdivision with deed restrictions; Commissioner Stutz was not in favor of 6 lots. Chairman Schreiner was not in favor of 6 lots because of the extremely rural area. She was concerned with this type of density just Planning Commission Minutes Approved 12/14/94 December 1, 1994 Page 8 because the numbers can be met with severe restrictions. Commissioner Gottlieb was concerned with larger homes on a 5 lot subdivision. Chairman Schreiner felt there was more possibility for openness with 5 lots than 6 lots. The poll indicated 4 to 2 in favor of a discussion of a 6 lot subdivision. The Conditions of Approval (November 30th staff report) were discussed. Additional items to be discussed and included were: the pathway; the renters; the barn; the water tank; screening; Human Habitat Setback; the swale; conservation easement numbers; joint driveway; finished floor numbers on lots 1, 5 and 6; staggering houses (as shown on the conceptual plan); and the driveway and parking area limited much as shown on the conceptual plan dated 11/16/94. Brief break at 7:15 p.m. Chairman Schreiner noted that the Commission would like to go through all of the conditions of approval, giving as many comments as possible, but not voting on the project until they have an opportunity to review all the changes. She ask6d the applicant, Mrs. Brockway, if she would be willing to return December 14th. Mrs. Brockway agreed to the continuance. Mrs. Brockway suggested the shape of the conservation easement be determined after the arborist completes the thinning of the trees. Ms. Niles noted that it would be appropriate to approve the map with the issue of the conservation easements in the general area but that the final design and limits of the conservation easements will be reviewed and approved after the thinning. There was a suggestion of a subcommittee (Ms. Niles, Ms. Kolf, Commissioners Stutz and Doran) to review the conservation easements. Conditions of Approval: 1. No change. 2. No change. 3. Add, "accepted but not to be developed at this time_" 4. Add after Moody Road "as shown on plan". 5. Change "except lawful fences to "including fences". Add, "The conservation easement for the swale shall be a total of 20 feet which includes the six foot swale" and "no fences across the swale". 6. No change. 7. 8. No change. Add "the MDA shall be restricted due to the constraints, etc." or "the development area and floor area may be reduced due to the constraints on the lot (conservation easements, Swale, etc.). " The wording shall be determined by the City Attorney. The proper wording will be added to a deed restriction and the CC&R's). Add "horses are allowed on properties." 9. No change. (`, 10. No change. Planning Commission Minutes Approved 12/14/94 December 1, 1994 9 `Page 11. Add after "Hidden Springs Lane" "or (name) as determined" (possibly changing the name). 12. No change. 13. No change. 14. No change. 15. No change. 16. No change. 17. No change. 18 No change. 19. 20. No change. Delete the first and last sentences. (Making sure there is drainage for the pathway so they can get over the drainage and continue up or down to Moody Road). 21. Change "upgraded and constructed as a type IIB" to "native pathway to continue around the cul-de-sac." 22. Change "type IIB" to "native". 23. No change. New condition added regarding tree thinning according to Barry Coate's recommendation. The project is approved with the final approval of the conservation easements and as noted in #3 on page two of the staff report, at a time prior to recordation of the map. New condition requesting no entry pillars at edge of cul-de-sac. (Discuss mailboxes on pillars at Site Development.) 24. 25. No change. The City Attorney agreed with this wording with reference to the barn. The Planning Commission and City Council has the option to consider if they want to give the applicant the benefit of allowing the tenant to stay in the house longer with a condition noting that the house has to be removed at the time either of the lots (lots 3 or 4) is sold which would be a recorded restriction. The barn is not an issue. 26. No change. 27. No change. 28. No change. 29. No change. 30. 31. No change. Add conditions to each lot for siting, height limitations, etc. Lot 1, single story, step down house/roof; Lot 2, off set or set back if two story ; (For the record, the Commission was very concerned with putting as many parameters as needed on the lot to alert applicants prior to Site Development.); Lot 3, the MDA shall be restricted due to the constraints, etc. or the development area and floor area may be reduced due to the constraints on the lot (conservation easements, swale, etc.); Lot 4, no restrictions; Lot 5, house height should decrease as it goes up the hill to protect views; Lot 6, house height should decrease as it goes up the hill to protect views. Planning Commission Minutes Approved 12/14/94 December 1, 1994 Page 10 32. Change to read, "Restrictions shall be placed on the map that limit construction of habitable structures in the 50' Human Habitation Set Back on lots 1 and 6 or as reviewed on a case by case basis as for safety and compatibility of other structures proposed." 33. Add "non invasive plants and no fencing'. 34. Add to the first sentence "lots 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 and 6." Ms. Niles will return with wording regarding separate approval for the final conservation easement (condition # 5). and additional conservation easement which will include the trees along the Swale areas. (This does not exclude fences on property lines.) 35. Add condition regarding Negative Declaration noting mitigation monitoring program written up, reviewed and signed for the mitigation measures on the project which is a formality. 36. Add condition regarding tree screening between properties. A correction will be made to the Negative Declaration, Project Description, lot sizes as the numbers have been changed and under #8, should read "restriction should be made on the map.... Commissioner Gottlieb asked that Ms. Niles relay the reasoning behind the acceptance of a 6 lot subdivision and their restrictions. MOTION SECONDED AND PASSED BY CONSENSUS: Motion by Commissioner McMahon, seconded by Commissioner Cheng and passed by consensus with Commissioner Doran absent for vote to continue the application to December 14, 1994 to review the revisions to the map, the conditions of approval and the Negative Declaration. �f�if� i-Uu ► The meeting was adjourned by consensus at 9:15 p.m. Respectfully submitted, _ Planning Secretary