HomeMy WebLinkAbout05/10/2000kr Minutes of a Regular Meeting Approved 5/24/00
Town of Los Altos Hills
PLANNING COMMISSION
Wednesday, May 10, 2000,7:00 p.m.
Council Chambers, 26379 Fremont Road
cc: Cassettes (2) #9-00
1. ROLL CALL AND PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
The Planning Commission meeting was called to order at 7:02 p.m. in the Council
Chambers at Town Hall.
Present: Commissioners Gottlieb, Jinkerson, Cottrell, Wong & Schreiner
Staff: Curtis Williams, Planning Director; Ola Balogun, Associate Engineer, Carl
Cahill, Associate Planner; Lani Smith, Planning Secretary
2. PRESENTATIONS FROM THE FLOOR -none
3. PUBLIC HEARINGS
3.1 LANDS OF LE & DO, 24018 Oak Knoll Circle (125-99-ZP-SD-GD); A
request for a Site Development Permit for a new residence.
Staff had nothing further to add to the report. For clarification, it was noted that terraces
that are covered but are not enclosed on three sides are counted as development area. The
upper terrace, if it is not covered and over development area, does not count. If it was
covered, it would count as development area. In this instance, the upper terrace is open
and would not count as additional development area. However, the lower terrace would
count entirely as development area. The Commission would need to make the
determination if, due to the substantial arches, would it count as floor area also. Staff also
fielded questions regarding the removal of a large limb appearing to be at least 10 inches in
diameter which was removed from an existing 48" oak tree located on the east side of the
lot in order to erect the story poles. This is not a normal procedure. Also, condition of
approval (#3) will require that a certified arborist supervise any grading activity near the
tree.
OPENED PUBLIC HEARING
Planning Commission Minutes Approved 5/24/00
May 10, 2000
Page 2
Mark Godby, 735 Industrial Road, San Carlos, project architect, reviewed the site and the
story pole placement. They were also unhappy with the cutting of the oak tree limb and
will have an arborist review the damage to the tree and will have it pruned, fertilized and
irrigated to make sure it is healthy before construction. He reviewed the outline of the
story poles and netting. He felt the house looked small on the hill and well screened in
some areas. The goal was to push the house down the hill so when someone was driving
down Oak Knoll Circle they would be able to see out above the house to the lake.
Regarding stepping down the hill, he stated when he was designing the house originally, he
found that the site was actually so steep that if they had rooms at different elevations, by
the time he got to the back of the house, it was way off of the ground. He referred to staff
suggestion to move the garage to the left side of the home which was what he had
reviewed prior. However, the garage was so far up hill in elevation that it created much
difficulty in transitioning to be near the grades to get the rest of the house down low near
grade levels. He felt the design was good, fitting well with the hill.
Sandy Humphries, Environmental Design Committee, voiced concern regarding the oak
tree with the limb removed as now the weight of the tree is on the down hill side and the
tree slightly angles toward the downhill. She would like the tree to be looked at by an
arborist and, as a precaution, she would like the house moved out of the dripline up hill
slightly. She also requested that three additional oak trees (minimum 15 gallon) be planted
should this tree be lost. She would like to see rules in place to prevent this from ever
happening in the future.
CLOSED PUBLIC HEARING
Commissioner Cottrell felt there were two major issues: moving the house away from the
oak tree; and bringing the plan closer in line with the grading policy. He would prefer to
see a step design on this type of slope. Commissioner Gottlieb agreed . She also felt the
lower area should be counted in the floor area calculations which would require a redesign.
Commissioner Schreiner shared the same concerns. The house should be moved 10-15
feet to protect the oak tree. She asked what the impact would be to relocate the driveway
which was answered by the Associate Planner as stated in the staff report. Commissioner
Schreiner continued, voicing problems with the design on the back of the house (should be
nested) and felt the terrace area should be counted.
Discussion ensued by Commissioner Wong and answered by Planning Director regarding
the grading policy and if it was mandatory asking if it was possible to mitigate grading
(yes) and whether this would create an undue hardship on the applicants (no). The
Planning Director noted the policy was adopted by Council and it is imposed on every
application. The Planning Commission can allow more grading, if justifiable. He felt
there should be some attempt to get closer to the grading policy numbers. Chairman
Jinkerson complimented Mr. Cahill for the staff report and his many observations. If
redesigned, there should be some thought to the suggested driveway change, stepped down
the hill, and an arborist report on the oak tree. The grading was a great concern (a 1,350
Planning Commission Minutes Approved 5/24100
May 10, 2000
Page 3
square foot area of the building footprint is not in compliance). Also the dissipater should
not be within the dripline of the 48" oak tree.
MOTION SECONDED AND PASSED: Motion by Commissioner Gottlieb and seconded
by Commissioner Schreiner to continue the Lands of Le & Do, 24018 Oak Knoll Circle, to
a future date, for redesign, to address stated concerns as noted in the staff report and the
Planning Commission, addressing the following: work with staff regarding grading policy;
prepare an arborist report regarding the 48" oak tree; count the lower area in the floor area
calculations or open up the area; move the house 10-15 feet to protect the oak tree; and the
design should step down the hill.
AYES: Chairman Jinkerson, Commissioners Wong, Cottrell, Gottlieb & Schreiner
NOES: None
This project will be re -noticed for a future Planning Commission agenda.
3.2 LANDS OF JAIN, 28510 Matadero Creek Lane (Lot 5) (27-00-ZP-SD-
Amendment); Request for approval of landscape plan and for modification
of tentative map conditions for Matadero Creek Subdivision (Tract #7187)
to permit development area of 1,334 square feet in excess of allowable
maximum.
Staff had nothing further to add to the report. It was clarified that the application was
before the Planning Commission with a recommendation to City Council due to the
modification to the Tentative Map subdivision conditions. When Chairman Jinkerson
asked if this was submitted to the Matadero Creek Architectural Review Board the
response was no. It was also noted that the fence indicated on the site plan is crossing the
pathway which is not allowed, and the development area for the driveway is approximately
2,000 square feet. Commissioner Gottlieb questioned the lawn area by the fountain area
asking if there will be additional fill. The Planning Director responded no. He further
fielded questions regarding the other 20 lots in the subdivision and if they had similar
problems (no) and for his rationale regarding recommending an increase in development
area to only 9,000 square feet; not the 9,714 square feet as requested. He stated that 9,000
square feet would be consistent with levels of development area approved for other lots,
given the comparative lot sizes. Commissioner Gottlieb asked if the roadside path in front
of the house should be brought back? The Planning Director will review the original
conditions of approval. He also noted the receipt of recommendations from the
Environmental Design Committee.
Commissioner Cottrell disclosed that his residence is within 1,000 feet from this site,
however, in a totally different neighborhood.
OPENED PUBLIC HEARING
Planning Commission Minutes Approved 5/24100
May 10, 2000
Page 4
Lall Jain, 28510 Matadero Creek Lane, applicant, stated that the new rule being applied to
their property and the rule was not applied to the other 19 lots. If you applied the rule
which was prior to the new rule they should be entitled to 2, 200 square feet of additional
development area. If the Town wants to apply the new rule (305) it should be applied to
the entire lot not just a restricted area. He stated that a Matadero Creek Architectural
Review Board does not exist.
Shabnam Jain, 28510 Matadero Creek Lane, applicant, stated the last time they were in
front of the Council when they were asking for 2,200 square feet of development area
because the rules were being changed, Bob Johnson said let the applicants do a
landscaping plan, letting the applicants tell the Council what development area they really
need based on the landscaping plan. They need and have specified on the plan were the
1,334 square feet will be used. No one will be able to see the expansions. Also, there is a
condition of approval that some of the screening needs to be completed prior to final
inspection (#2). They submitted their plans in January. She requested that the screening
be done as part of the landscaping plan which they plan to finish within the next two
months.
Bob Lefkowits, 28515 Matadero Creek Lane, stated there is an Architectural Board and
this plan was not submitted for review. The City Council in June unanimously approved
the new rules to avoid this type of conflict. With the new rules, the applicants would have
no increase available. He agreed with the staff report and to reduce the request to 9,000
square feet of development area. Also, he reminded the Commission when there was
objection to the size of the house, Mr. Jain stated they did not need additional development
area. He is on record stating if the house was approved which only left them
approximately 400 square feet beyond the driveway, that was all they needed. He supports
the staff report but has problems with the landscape plan as the fence goes through the
pathway and the conservation easement. There was a concern with the lawn area which is
a steep area and may be within the dripline of the oak tree. Some grading would not bother
him as long as it does not hurt the oak tree.
Scott Vanderlip, Pathway Committee, was concerned with the proposed fence and the
pathway which is marked on the plan "parking area". He would not recommend parking
on a pathway.
Sandy Humphries, Environmental Design Committee, was concerned with the plantings of
the Catalina Cherry (PRU) between the residence on the right as this tree grows to 30-45
feet in height which would shade the neighbors to the right considerably. The birch tree is
not as much of a problem because it is deciduous. She would like the neighbors on both
sides and the applicants to determine what would be best between the properties. She has
not had time to research what would be a better choice.
Planning Commission Minutes Approved 5/24/00
May 10, 2000
Page 5
Shabnam Jain, 28510 Matadero Creek Lane, applicant, stated that the fence placement is
an error. Regarding the trees, her neighbor is an excellent landscape architect and they can
use whatever the neighbor recommends and/or Sandy Humphries' recommendation.
Regarding the dripline, the landscape person measured the dripline from both sides so the
trees should be safe. She only asked that all screening is part of the landscape plan so they
will be able to move in. Give them two months to complete.
CLOSED PUBLIC HEARING
Commissioner Wong asked for clarification regarding conservation easements and fencing
which was answered by the Planning Director. Plantings are restricted to native plantings
with open fencing to allow for movement of wildlife and you may plant to the edge of the
conservation easement. Commissioner Schreiner pointed out some historical information
regarding the previous application. Mr. Jain, at that time, stated he did not need any more
development area and he would be willing to have a deed restriction recorded limiting
develop area to 8,376 square feet in order to have the 6,000 square feet of floor area. She
asked what sort of precedent is it setting for this subdivision and for the rest of the Town.
The staff report has made it very clear that granting more than a 620 square foot increase
would throw the whole subdivision into another category. The subdivision was originally
intended to showcase open space. It is the only subdivision in Town that does this. The
Council has decided what the new figures should be. Another precedent she was
concerned with was applicants who have maxed their floor and development area numbers
and then come in for an additional area, referencing this application. She felt this
particular subdivision and the people who live there have a right to expect that everyone is
going to follow the rules and regulations that were set down for each lot and not start this
process over again. Commissioner Gottlieb agreed. Council accepted these figures. She
agreed with the staff recommendation. Commissioner Cottrell agreed with staff
recommendation also with the protection of the pathway and conservation easement with
no parking in the front (on pathway). Chairman Jinkerson felt this application should have
gone through the Architectural Review Board. However, he agreed with the staff
recommendation.
MOTION SECONDED AND PASSED: Motion by Commissioner Cottrell and seconded
by Commissioner Wong to recommend approval of landscape plan and for modification of
tentative map conditions for Matadero Creek Subdivision (Tract #7187) to permit
development area of 620 square feet in excess of allowable maximum, Lands of Jain,
28510 Matadero Creek Lane (lot 5), with the following additions/changes: preserve the
front and back pathways (no parking on front pathway); no fencing within the conservation
easement; and findings for approval.
AYES: Chairman Jinkerson, Commissioners Gottlieb, Cottrell & Wong
NOES: Commissioner Schreiner
4W This item will appear on the June 1" City Council agenda.
Planning Commission Minutes
May 10, 2000
Page 6
Approved 5/14100
4 3.3 LANDS OF KERNS, 11890 Francemont Court (317-99-ZP-SD-GD); A
request for a Site Development Permit for a new residence, and detached
three -car garage (with an office studio above) on the lower building site.
The Planning Director introduced this item by noting the receipt of a letter from Kit Mura-
smith at 11880 Francemont Drive. Chairman Jinkerson asked if it would be better to
review both applications for the upper and lower sites together. Discussion ensued
regarding the conservation easement and the involvement of the City Attorney. He asked
for the City Attorney's opinion since this is not your usual secondary dwelling.
Commissioner Schreiner agreed with the suggestion to review both applications together
(do not split the projects). Commissioner Gottlieb felt it would be difficult to review the
lower site without reviewing the upper site as well. Commissioner Wong felt it was
appropriate to split the projects in phases. Commissioner Cottrell would like to make sure
that the lower project was architecturally compatible with the primary dwelling.
OPENED PUBLIC HEARING
Bill Maston, 384 Castro Street, Mountain View, project architect, felt the previous
discussion was irrelevant to the application. What the Commission has before them
should be discussed not anything anticipated in the future. The City Council was very
direct during a study session which took place after the last denial noting that if a separate
application was submitted for the lower site, it would be the only application in front of the
Commission and therefore be reviewed on its sole merits, not on any anticipated future
development. For this reason, the application before them should be reviewed as it stands.
He noted that staff was not given an opportunity to give their own view of the report. Just
because there is another application pending it should not mean they should be combined.
If need be, they will pull the other application so it is not an issue. He would like to
address the application and have staff give their report and not to be concerned about any
anticipated future project as it is not before them. He asked for staff to report on the
project.
The Planning Director clarified that the application before the Commission is a separate
application. Yes, there is another application pending for the upper site. He could discuss
this with the City Attorney. Staff felt comfortable with moving forward with the
application. The City Council discussion noted that the Town was willing to entertain an
application at the lower site to allow the Kerns to get something approved and start
building. If they always link the two sites, they will never get anything done. The
direction was that the Kerns could move forward. He did not anticipate seeing the upper
site come in before the lower site went through the process.
Bill Masten continued, commenting on the lower site and how they placed the structures.
He discussed the following: location of the house, tucking into the side of the hill; the
alignment of the driveway; sight lines and sight safety; the letter from the neighbor
regarding a permanent structure; limitation of 1,000 square feet; garage as accessory
structure; screening; request for a fire hydrant and subsequent letter from the Fire
Planning Commission Minutes Approved 5/24/00
May 10, 2000
Page 7
4 Department (condition #19 will be deleted); arborist report (minimal impact on trees);
appropriate house location; and the Pathways Committee request to grant pathway
easement in northwest comer of the property measuring 50 feet in the north -south direction
and 100 feet in the east -west direction, to provide a less steep access to the existing
pathways on the former Adobe Creek Lodge property. He did not believe the Committee
needed as much area as suggested. He felt the pathway could start at the bottom of the cul-
de-sac rather than traverse across a portion of hill that exceed 100% slope. There was an
alternative discussed at a previous meeting using a switch back at the top of the end of the
existing pavement. They would like to, if possible.
Further discussion ensued. Commissioner Schreiner was not clear what this house
represents on the lot is it the main residence or a secondary dwelling? Mr. Maston stated
that the application before them, by definition, is a main residence and not attached to any
other application. This does not preclude it from becoming a secondary residence in the
future. Chairman Jinkerson asked if he would agree that the Commission had the power to
say that if this is the main residence, there shall be no other development on the parcel
anywhere. Mr. Maston responded no because there are MDA/MFA numbers and
exceptions to a conservation easement which allows an applicant to do future development.
Commissioner Schreiner continued stating realistically, they are subdividing the lot with
two residences on this property. Mr. Maston noted that she was anticipating something in
the future. It is not a land split by putting two structures on the property. He officially
withdrew the other application until this application has been reviewed so it is no longer an
460 issue whether or not to combine the two applications.
Bill Kerns, 11890 Francemont Court, owner of the property since 1996, noted that if the
other application for the upper site is never approved, they would be happy to live in the
structure on the lower site. They would like approval to move this along. They would
prefer a denial to a continuance.
Sandy Humphries, Environmental Design Committee, stated they would prefer they build
over the pool area which would be better for the neighbor. Where the house is sitting now
is very close to he edge of the hill and mitigating this from down hill would not be easy.
This is an area with wildlife and by removing the existing oak trees they are removing the
food source for many animals. She further discussed the Committee reviewing the upper
site, how their time is valuable, and she did not appreciate it when applicants are not
straight forward regarding their applications.
Scott Vanderlip, Pathways Committee, discussed their request as the goal of the easement
was to connect to trails to the old Adobe Creek Lodge property. Perhaps they do not need
as much as specified by using a switch back. They can be flexible. This can be reviewed
with staff. Bill Maston stated they would be happy to work with staff and the Committee
with switch backs. They just did not want it to be a blanket 50 foot easement.
CLOSED PUBLIC HEARING
Planning Commission Minutes Approved 5/24/00
May 10, 2000
Page 8
taw Commissioner Gottlieb was at the City Council meeting when the applicants were told
they could come in with an application for a secondary unit for the lower site to allow them
to build. She opposed the location of the second unit if there will be a structure on the
upper site as this will not be subordinate contrary to §10-1.702(k) which states secondary
dwellings shall meet the following standards:
(1) A secondary dwelling shall be subordinate to and architecturally consistent with the
primary dwelling.
(2) The secondary dwelling shall not exceed 1,000 square feet of floor area;.
(3) If the secondary dwelling is within or attached to the primary dwelling, it shall be
constructed so that the entire structure appears to be one dwelling;.
(4) If the secondary dwelling is separate from the primary dwelling, it shall not be sited
in a visually prominent location, and shall respect the visual and acoustic privacy of
primary dwellings on contiguous lots.
(5) The lot on which a secondary dwelling is located must be connected to the public
sanitary sewer system or have a private sewage disposal system that is deemed to be
adequate for the addition of the second dwelling by the Santa Clara County Division of
Health Services; and must have an adequate water supply.
(6) The secondary dwelling shall not have a significant adverse impact on traffic flaw
and safety.
(7) Any vehicular access to a secondary dwelling shall be by a common driveway with
( the primary dwelling.
`r (8) The views of prominent scenic features by primary dwellings on contiguous lots
shall be preserved.
She would have preferred a 1,000 square foot dwelling with a carport rather than the
proposal which may possibly allow them two secondary dwellings. She had concerns with
the amount of development and that it may not be architecturally compatible with the other
future structure.
Commissioner Cottrell felt this was a "catch 22" for the Planning Commission as there are
more issues then whether or not this dwelling is approved (future application of upper
lot/defacto subdivision). It would be better to deny this application and pass it to the City
Council. Commissioner Wong discussed the MDA/MFA, and previous approvals. They
should have consideration for the future residents. They should look only at this
application and approve it. If there are other future applications, they should deal with
them as they come in. Commissioner Schreiner felt it was clear that the intent of the
applicant is to make this a secondary unit. However, it does not meet the requirements for
a secondary unit (not subordinate, square footage). A better approach would be to see the
whole project at the same time. Chairman Jinkerson felt the main house application is
tentatively set for June 281°. They could continue this application until that date and
review both applications. Environmentally, this is one of the most sensitive areas in Town.
They should look at the entire site.
Planning Commission Minutes Approved 524/00
May 10, 2000
Page 9
4 MOTION SECONDED AND PASSED: Motion by Commissioner Schreiner and
seconded by Commissioner Cottrell to continue a request for a Site Development Permit
for a new residence, and detached three -car garage (with an office studio above) on the
lower building site to the June 28" Planning Commission meeting at which time the
pending application for a new residence on the upper site and this application can be heard
as the Commission would like to review the entire site at the same time, Lands of Kerns,
11890 Francemont Court.
AYES: Chairman Jinkerson, Commissioners Gottlieb, Cottrell & Schreiner
NOES: Commissioner Wong
Brief break at 9:20 p.m.
4. OLD BUSINESS
4.1 Report from subcommittees. Commissioner Schreiner reported on the
progress of the Land Use Element of the General Plan.
5. NEW BUSINESS -none
6. REPORT FROM THE CITY COUNCIL MEETING
6.1 Planning Commission Representative for May 4a', Commissioner Gottlieb,
reported on the following items: grant conservation easement, Lands of Mittelman
(continued); approval of request for a lot line adjustment, 26401 and 26411 Eshner Court,
Lands of LeFevre and Yanez; approval of site development permit for new residence and
pool, Lands of the Owen Companies; grant of conservation easement, Lands of Robertson
(continued); statement of Council policy on roadside paths; consideration of formation of
new standing committee on recreational programs in Town of Los Altos Hills; discussion
of status of ownership of Almaden Court; presentation by residents of Mora Drive of a
Mora Drive sewer extension request; Council appointments to committees, sub -committees
and outside agencies; request for an increase in committee membership from seven to
eight; request for direction to proceed with conducting research on neighboring emergency
preparedness programs; tentative Council budget workshop (5126); restatement of Council
policy on Planning Commissioners speaking on applications at Council meetings; Lands of
Taaffe; and Lands of Barth.
6.2 Planning Commission Representative for May 18e'—Commissioner Cottrell
7. APPROVAL OF MINUTES
7.1 Approval of April 26, 2000 minutes
PASSED BY CONSENSUS: To approve the April 26, 2000 minutes.
Planning Commission Minutes
May 10, 2000
Page 10
Approved 5/24/00
8. REPORT FROM SITE DEVELOPMENT MEETING- MAY 2 & 9, 2000
8.1 LANDS OF FIORINA, 28545 Matadero Creek Lane (71-00-ZP-SD); A
request for a Site Development Permit for a pool and landscape
improvements. Approved with conditions May 2, 2000.
8.2 LANDS OF YANG, 13481 Mandoli Drive (100-00-ZP-SD); A request for
a Site Development Permit for a 748 square foot secondary dwelling unit.
Approved with conditions May 9, 2000.
REPORT FROM FAST TRACK MEETING- MAY 2,200
9.1 LANDS OF DETRICK, 12120 Kate Drive (313-99-ZP-SD-GD); A request
for a Site Development Permit for a new residence. Approved with
conditions.
9.2 LANDS OF RADFORD, 13810 La Paloma Raod (46-00-ZP-SD); A request
for a Site Development Permit for a new residence and pool. Approved with
conditions.
10. ADJOURNMENT
The meeting was adjourned by consensus at 9:45 p.m.
Respectfully
speectfully submitted,
V-"
Lam Smith
Planning Secretary
v