Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout10/25/2000Minutes of a Regular Meeting Approved 11/8/00 Town of Los Altos Hills PLANNING COMMISSION Wednesday, October 25, 2000, 7:00 p.m. Council Chambers, 26379 Fremont Road cc: Cassettes (2) #19-00 1. ROLL CALL AND PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE The Planning Commission meeting was called to order at 7:00 p.m. in the Council Chambers at Town Hall. Present: Chairman Cottrell, Commissioners Vita, Gottlieb, Clow & Wong Staff: Carl Cahill, Planning Director; Angelica Herrera, Assistant Planner; Lam Smith, Planning Secretary 3. PUBLIC HEARINGS lkir 3.1 LANDS OF DORRIAN, 25400 La Loma Drive (201 -00 -LM); A request for a Lot Merger. Staff introduced this item noting the lot merger is to combine two existing legal conforming lots for the purpose of developing the property as a single lot with a single family residence and accessory structure. OPENED PUBLIC HEARING Harry Emerzian, Pathway Committee, for the record, he wanted to make sure that the pathway easement is not landscaped over and it is kept clean and clear. CLOSED PUBLIC HEARING MOTION SECONDED AND PASSED: Motion by Commissioner Clow and seconded by Commissioner Vitu to recommend to the City Council approval of the lot merger, Lands of Dotrian, 25400 La Loma Drive. AYES: Chairman Cottrell, Commissioners Wong, Gottlieb, Vitu & Clow NOES: None This item will appear on a future City Council agenda. Planning Commission Minutes Approved 11/8/00 October 25, 2000 Page 2 3.2 LANDS OF SINDHU & BERTRAND, 27060 Old Trace Lane (136-00-LLA); A request for a Lot Line Adjustment. Staff introduced this item noting that the house on Parcel 2 will be demolished by November 30, 2000. He suggested recommending approval to the Council provided that the house is removed prior to the City Council public hearing. The accessory structures do not need to be removed. OPENED PUBLIC HEARING Mr. Sindhu and Ms. Bertrand, 1557 Montalto Drive, Mountain View, applicants, stated they will be demolishing the house on Parcel 2 and the accessory structure on Parcel 3 by November 30, 2000. CLOSED PUBLIC HEARING Commissioner Gottlieb noted that the pathway on Old Trace Lane was in the road right-of- way. MOTION SECONDED AND PASSED: Motion by Commissioner Vitu and seconded by Commissioner Wong to recommend to the City Council approval of the lot merger, Lands of Sindhu & Bertrand, 27060 Old Trace Lane, conditioned on the removal of the main house on kir Parcel 2. AYES: Chairman Cottrell, Commissioners Clow, Gottlieb, Wong & Vita NOES: None This item will appear on a future City Council agenda. 3.3 LANDS OF KORMAN, 26157 Altadena Road (230-00-ZP-SD); A request for a Site Development permit for a 1,417 square foot second story addition. Staff introduced this item by providing the history of the original July 28, 1998 approval. The property is under construction of a new one-story residence. Due to the request for a major modification to the existing approved project, it is before the Planning Commission for review. The Planning Commission originally approved a one story house and its location. The applicant is requesting approval for a second story addition, maximum height 26.8 feet above existing grade. There is already a second story addition approved as a part of the original project (master bedroom area 508 square feet plus an additional 80 square feet). What is not approved but is being proposed tonight is the 829 square foot second floor plan that shows as bedrooms 4 and 5 indicated by story poles. Due to construction being underway, it is not an option to push the house back to lessen the impact of the proposed second story. Two skylights and one new dome are proposed with the application, all to be L located on the second story roof. Commissioners Cottrell and Gottlieb disclosed that they had Planning Commission Minutes Approved 11/8/00 October 25, 2000 Page 3 spoken to the applicants on the site. Also, a letter from concerned neighbors was received for review. Stan Field, 3631 Evergreen Drive, Palo Alto, project architect, clarified that the original application proposed two second story wings, the master bedroom and an office with a dome. The later has been removed and they would like it replaced with the second story bedrooms without the dome. There are no windows facing the neighbors on the upper story. Consideration was taken regarding setbacks with the previous approval. Originally they wanted it on the property line but because of the neighbors they agreed to push the house back 50 feet rather than 30 feet on one side, and 45 feet on the other side, and slightly rotated the house with a lot line adjustment. At the time it was felt this would provide areas for tree screening. He provided a sketch of a tree screening plan and mentioned they could plant them on a berm. He felt the house was low and unobtrusive. There are other two story houses in the area and they are 175 feet away from the nearest neighbor. The pool is close to the house and out of the setback. Trees will screen this area also. Regarding the concerns with the skylights, he felt they would not be visible to the neighbors as there will be a parapet wall to shield them from the neighbors. Commissioner Gottlieb asked if the parapet could be reduced two feet? Mr. Field felt this is something that could be considered, if the skylights are objectionable. Diana Huffman, 26590 Snell Lane, had provided a letter which had been signed by a number of the neighbors addressing their concerns, in particular, the following: neighbors to the west expressed concern regarding the increased noise caused by the proposed gravel driveway and turnaround; neighbors at 26590 Snell Lane concerned with safety of their small children should the proposed pool be approved; the long delay in notifying the Planning Commission and neighbors about the proposed changes; and clarification regarding the dome issue. She further addressed items mentioned in the staff report regarding the mature trees which will provide screening, and the proposed addition not affecting the view of the neighbors. The proposed modifications would increase the height to 26.8 feet, an increase of 11.8 feet. The proposed additions will be very visible from many areas. Since it will be so close to the west side property line, the proposed second story structure would tower over the properties of the adjacent neighbors and would cut off views of the outdoors which previously created a feeling of openness. She purchased their property in June, 1999, and their decision to purchase the property was based, in part, on knowing that the home to be built on the Korman site was limited to 15 feet in height along the back west elevation. The proposed addition will dramatacally change from the originally approved plan. There will be a loss of privacy and increased lighting from windows located on the west and south sides of the proposed second floor addition. She felt there were serious concerns regarding the ability to screen the originally approved design. The proposed modifications to the floor plan also change the focus area of the structure's backyard (pool area). Josh Korman, 26157 Altadena Road, applicant, reviewed the history of the original approval and clarified the changes made to the plan during the review process in July, 1998. He noted much opposition regarding the house on the setback lines, even though they adhered to all the taw rules and regulations spending two years working with the Town. The open space referred to Planning Commission Minutes Approved t 118/00 October 25, 2000 Page 4 ibr was not open space but their property. In order to accommodate the neighbors they moved the lot line and rotated the house and increased the setbacks. After approval they met with the neighbors to review the landscape plan. In the process of construction, he realized that each one of his four children needed their own bedroom. They only have one location for the pool which will be partially screened by the house and the trees. He reiterated that they are in total compliance of the Town rules and regulations. They have the ability to screen with berms and they have tried very hard to work with the neighbors. Paul Newhagen, 14412 Kingsley Way, was concerned with the upward lighting (two new skylights). Stan Field did not feel Mr. Newhagen will see the skylights or if he does they can screen the area in some way or raise the parapets. Harry Emerzian, Pathways Committee, would like to make sure that the original conditions of approval (July 22, 1998) #22, and #23 will still be effect if this application is approved. Dr. Korman discussed the pathway conditions with Curtis Williams who felt it would be alright to put in the IIB pathway after the construction of the house. He clarified that at the City Council meeting, there was a condition of abandoning the Lowell Lane pathway easement requiring the applicant to construct a IIB pathway on the opposite (east) side of ` Kingsley Way and to provide an easement and connection to Esther Clark Park. The City ` Manager determined that the path should be on the east side of Kingsley, to avoid the need to cross the Korman driveway which will become even wider with the previous proposal. Sandy Humphries, Environmental Design Committee, requested reviewing the variety of palm trees to be used at their entry to make sure they will not seed into the wetland areas of Esther Clark Park. She felt the area in the back of the property was a good place for trees as they would not have to be as tall. Steve Combs, 26640 Snell Court, would like to make sure his house area is screened (south area) maintaining his privacy and that the drainage swale is maintained. Dot Schreiner, 14301 Saddle Mountain Drive, felt if the domes were of any substantial size, they have been treated as an extension of the roof and should be required to conform with the roof reflectivity value. Bob Glazebrook, 26623 Snell Lane, was under the impression the domes were deleted. Mr. Cahill responded that the only dome was over the master bedroom approved at the previous meeting in 1998. There are no domes proposed for this new two bedroom wing. Mr. Glazebrook also noted that he was one of the signers of the letter opposing the addition. Siobhan Korman, 26157 Altadena Road, applicant, also provided historical information L regarding the property which has been kept open for 26 years. However, it is their property fir1 and it is being developed. She also noted that they want privacy as much as the neighbors. Planning Commission Minutes October 25, 2000 Page 5 CLOSED PUBLIC HEARING Approved 11/8/00 Discussion ensued regarding screening and visibility. Commissioner Vito liked the suggestion of using a berm and condition the trees tall enough for screening. She felt the proposal fits within the ordinances and she would approved the project with conditioned screening. Commissioner Wong asked for more details regarding drainage. Mr. Cahill noted that the drainage plan was approved by the Planning Commission in 1998. The second story addition should not effect the drainage plan. All the conditions of the original approval apply. They could add a condition mitigating the effects of the two story addition. The berm was not a part of the original drainage plan and would need to be reviewed by the engineering department to make sure it does not create any drainage issues. Regarding skylights, the standard skylight condition (#9) has been added. Commissioner Wong appreciated the neighbors concerns but the proposal meets the codes and regulations. Commissioner Gottlieb was disappointed since the Commission had spent a great deal of time on the original application in 1998. When she had spoken to the Kormans, they were unaware of neighbor opposition. They are adding I1 feet on a flat roof. She would prefer reducing the ceiling by 2 feet and the parapet by 2 feet; a 4 foot reduction. She can understand the need for two extra bedrooms but the Commission should protect the neighbors. Commissioner Clow felt the original approval was good. He did not understand why the applicants did not receive any neighbor support. He was bothered that trees were planted and died, questioning future trees. L He would like to see if they are able to grow some trees to demonstrate screening could grow. �r He suggested delaying the second story addition until the trees are in place to provide screening. He felt the structure was very boxy. Chairman Cottrell was troubled with the addition but understood it meets codes and ordinances. He would prefer the bedrooms on the ground floor. He could only support the project with a reduction of height by at least 2 feet. Commissioner Clow did not feel that was an adequate reduction. Further discussion ensued regarding the landscape plan returning to the Planning Commission and a higher landscape deposit required to insure adequate screening. Dr. Korman noted the installation of an expensive well ($30,000) to insure maintenance of landscaping. He would be willing to reduce the height by 2 feet. Commissioner Gottlieb suggested berms with breaks so a drainage situation would not occur and recommended 20 foot trees. MOTION SECONDED AND PASSED: Motion by Commissioner Vitu and seconded by Commissioner Wong to approve the Site Development Permit modification for a second story addition to a new residence under construction approved by the Planning Commission on July 22, 1998, Lands of Korman, 26157 Altadena Road, with the following additions/changes to the conditions of approval: the landscape plan to retum to the Planning Commission for review; lowering the roof height by 2 feet; increase the landscape deposit to $15,000; and a landscape plan to include 20 foot trees, and work with staff regarding berms to maintain drainage. AYES: Chairman Cottrell, Commissioners Wong, Clow & Vint NOES: Commissioner Gottlieb Planning Commission Minutes Approved 11/8100 October 25, 2000 Page 6 kW This approval is subject to a 22 day appeal period. 3.4 LANDS OF KORMAN, 26157 Altadena Road (231-00-ZP-SD); A request for a Site Development Permit for a pool and landscape screening plan. Staff had nothing further to add to the report. OPENED PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED PUBLIC HEARING PASSED BY CONSENSUS: To approve a Site Development Permit for a pool, Lands of Korman, 26157 Altadena Road, noting that the landscape plan is not a part of this approval and the landscape plan will be reviewed by the Planning Commission at a later date. This approval is subject to a 22 day appeal period. 3.5 LANDS OF YANEZ, 26171 Moody Road (318-99-ZP-SD-GD); A request for a Permit Modification (basement redesign) to a Site Development Permit for a 3,972 square foot new residence (maximum height 27 feet) approved May 30, 2000 at a Fast Track meeting. Staff had nothing further to add to the report. Commissioner Gottlieb questioned the location of the drainage pipe, the carport, and the stairs going up to the tower and whether or not the height should be measured at 35 feet since there is development going up to the tower. It was noted that the application is a review of the basement only. OPENED PUBLIC HEARING Guy Ayers, 26969 Moody Road, project architect, provided overlays of the two basement plans; one approved with the double planter wall between the walk out basement and the true basement; the other basement plan submitted with the construction plans. The original plans were approved at a Fast Track meeting by the former Planning Director. He suggested the fix for the basement to meet the basement definition which currently is not flexible enough to allow for situations for a walk out basement at the same level as the true basement. This was a way of allowing people with walk out basements to have a true basement the same way as people with a flatter lot would be allowed to have full basement or more under their entire house and not include it in the floor and development calculation. Using the former Planning Director's solution, they were able to go through the Fast Track process. Sheet A8.04 was submitted with the building plan sets after discussion with the structural engineer and deciding that it would be too cost prohibitive to have two concrete walls with dirt between them. There are no changes to the exterior of the house; the changes are only internal. They felt they have adhered to most of the basement definition as they still enter the basement from above and the ceiling is still below grade on the exterior sides of the basement. The only question was the internal wall of the basement and whether or not it was below grade. The Planning Commission Minutes Approved I1/8/00 October 25, 2000 Page 7 three outer walls are all below ground; the one interior wall exposed. He felt the current basement definition defeats fitting the house with the grade as it promotes leveling a flat area to build a house on. He referred to the Building Code definition. He felt the Planning Commission should encourage walk out basements. He further discussed measuring the heights and meeting the 35 foot rule. All they are proposing is eliminating the 5 feet of dirt and the extra wall. From the outside, there is no difference (all internal). Nancy Ewald, Pathways Committee, reiterated the original Pathway recommendations for granting a pathway easement along Chaparral Way. Mr. Cahill noted that the recommendation was not a part of the conditions as the slope along Chaparral Way is prohibited from ever constructing a pathway on this property. On the other side of Chaparral Way, the Horton property, which is expected to come in for subdivision. At that time they could require the pathway to be constructed in the right-of-way of Chaparral Way. CLOSED PUBLIC HEARING Commissioner Clow felt this was a similar situation as the Lands of Cleage where they maxed out the floor area and getting an extra 1,760 square feet in a basement. Mr. Cleage was able to do it completely with four walls incased in dirt; Yanez is on a slope which means they forced him into a bizarre situation with the 5 feet of dirt rule. He thought what they cared about is the square footage above grade. Given the direction received at the City Council meeting, not do the 5 feet of dirt and go with a single wall. Commissioner Gottlieb noted that the first floor of the house is at the same level as the basement. The reason the former Planning Director imposed the 5 foot separation was to prevent cutting through. This has been a regular practice of the Planning Commission. Commissioner Wong also asked what is their objective regarding basements. He agreed with Commissioner Gottlieb that there may be a tendency for some people to cut a hole through the wall but he felt they should not assume this. It is not an assumption they should be making. He did not see any impact with a single wall. Mr. Cahill responded that the 5 foot of separation is not to put the applicant through some exercise nor is it to prevent the applicant from tunneling through and day - lighting the basement. It was a technicality provided to the applicant by staff in order for them to meet the current basement definition. It is this reason he believed they could not approve this Permit Modification tonight as the current basement definition requires that a basement be wholly underground. This basement is not wholly underground. The whole south wall is above ground; above the adjoining grade. They can be sympathetic to the applicant's cause and change the ordinance but they cannot simply approve this (conflict with ordinance). If this is approved, this will be an entirely different way of interpreting the basement definition. Commissioner Vita would like to allow this as it does not impact anyone off-site but there is a consistency issue where other people had to count the space if they did not install the retaining wall and dirt to totally underground their basement. She would like to revisit the basement ordinance but at this point she was not comfortable allowing the basement to be day -lighted. Chairman Cottrell agreed. He has seen other basements separated. The basement ordinance does need to be revised. He cannot support kW the application as submitted. Planning Commission Minutes October 25, 2000 Page 8 Approved 11/8/00 Mr. Ayers felt he had interpreted the basement definition correctly and the Commission should encourage walk out basements. MOTION SECONDED AND PASSED: Motion by Commissioner Gottlieb and seconded by Commissioner Vim to deny the requested Site Development Permit modification finding that the proposed basement does not meet the Town's basement definition (§10-1.208). AYES: Chairman Cottrell, Commissioners Clow, Vitu & Gottlieb NOES: Commissioner Wong The appeal process was explained to the applicant and audience. Brief break 9:06 p.m. 4. OLD BUSINESS 4.1 Report from subcommittees -none 5. NEW BUSINESS -none 6. REPORT FROM THE CITY COUNCIL MEETING 6.1 Planning Commission Representative for October 19`", Commissioner Gottlieb, reported on the following items: Lands of Porter; and Lands of Padmanabhan. 6.2 Planning Commission Representative for November 2" — Commissioner Vitu Commissioner Gottlieb requested staff investigate the driveway cut at 27168 Moody Court. 7. APPROVAL OF MINUTES 7.1 Approval of October 11, 2000 minutes PASSED BY CONSENSUS: To approve the October 11, 2000 minutes. 8. REPORT FROM THE FAST TRACK MEETING — OCTOBER 24,200 8.1 LANDS OF YANG, 28020 Laura Court (lot 22) (168-00-ZP-SD-GD); A request for a Site Development Permit for a new residence, and a secondary dwelling unit. Planning Commission Minutes Approved 1I/8/00 October 25, 2000 Page 9 9. REPORT FROM SITE DEVELOPMENT MEETING -OCTOBER 24 2000 9.1 LANDS OF BOONMARK, 27233 Deer Springs Way (183-00-ZP-SD); A request for a Site Development Permit for an addition and hardscape improvements. Approved with conditions. 9.2 LANDS OF FURBUSH, 14190 Amherst Court (221-00-ZP-SD); A request for a Site Development Permit for secondary dwelling unit. Approved with conditions. 9.3 LANDS OF ROSCOE, 12243 Tepa Way (223-00-ZP-SD); A request for a Site Development Permit for an addition. Approved with conditions. 10. ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned by consensus at 9:25 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Lani Smith Planning Secretary