Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout8.1 (2) gQ i DRAFT Minutes of a Regular Meeting Town of Los Altos Hills PLANNING COMMISSION Wednesday, November 9, 1994, 7:00 P.M. Council Chambers, 26379 Fremont Road cc: Cassettes #20-94 (4 ) 1. ROLL CALL AND PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE Planning Commission meeting was called to order at 7:05 p.m. in the Council Chambers at Town Hall. Present: Chairman Schreiner, Commissioners McMahon, Gottlieb, Doran& Stutz Absent: Commissioner Cheng Staff: Linda Niles, Planning Director;Jeff Peterson, City Engineer; Sheryl Kolf, Assistant Engineer; Lani Lonberger, Planning Secretary 2. PRESENTATIONS FROM THE FLOOR Commissioner Doran suggested not,hearing public hearing items after 11:00 p.m. to ensure no items would go beyond 11:30 p.m. Ms. Niles commented that it is policy to take a vote of the Planning Commission to go past 11:30 p.m. It was suggested placing this topic on the next agenda for discussion. 3. PUBLIC HEARINGS 3.1 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 10/26/94). Ms. Niles introduced this item noting that the mitigation measures the Planning Commission requested for the Negative Declaration are not part of the conditions of approval until the Planning Commissioners direct staff toincludethem,as part of the conditions of approval. Chairman Schreiner noted that the setback lines were not shown on the colored map and the fact that, as stated in the staff report, the applicant has stated • that the only lot which might not allow room for a pool when developed up to its maximum area is lot 4 due to the considerable number of oak trees across the rear of the lot. Planning Commission i‘4inucc„ DRAFT Nov, giber 9, 1994 Page 2 Ms. Kolf addressed the swale noting that there were 29 acres which feed into this drainage swale. The swale dimensions are adequate for a 100 year flood. One option for the swale would be six feet wide and 18 inches deep. She further discussed the construction materials for the swale being similar to the Lands of Hoover which i_i_��con is.teod c� o s ma real, netting and planting. It was felt an e sement% E might e e essive orfthis size swale and 10 feet on each side�<v use more ade{Coate: This would be 26 feet net across the entire length of the swale width-wise running across lots 2, 4 and 5. It was noted that the swale is only a third of the size of the Hoover swale. OPENED PUBIC HEARING Beve ly ckway, 23215 Mora Glen Drive, presented a display showing potential pool and o areas for each lot. She discussed the wale an asked that the exact location of e )vale could be determined by working 'th}the i.ty ngineer. She requested that t swale be 10 feet from the center of the b k as when you look upon lot 2 and the rse path, she would like the swale in that area to be able to fit in as much as possible ithin the 30 foot setback lines. She noted that they have adjusted lot lines to save the barn, however the barn is not in good shape and cannot be moved. The barn is approximately 2,700 square feet. She further discussed the CC&R's for the subdivision which would include the restrictions relating to drainage. Mr. Peterson noted that the C &R's, since the drainage swale would be in a private easement, the Town would not cessarily want to be involved because once the CC&R's are approved, the Town does not want to administer them. This is one of the reasons the Town is not asking for a public storm drain easement. There is no water coming off of a public right-of-way that (v? enters into this area. If the Town assures that they have a viable agreement set up p between themselves, then there is something in place when it comes time to maintain and/or repair it. This will be part of the conditions of approval. 6( Mrs. Brockway further discussed the attachment to the plan and the alternative access to erj lots 1 and 6. She noted that she had met with Barrie Coate, arborist, and they walked-the property. He recommended moving the cul-de-sac away from the three oak trees that are on lot 6. In order to accomplish this they had to slide the cul-de-sac over . The blue area on the plan is the location of the new cul-de-sac. The hatch line is where they showed it on the map. They have adjusted two driveways; the driveway entrance to lot 5 and the possible entrance to lot 6. One large oak tree would remain on the cul-de-sac from Altamont Road (the 18 inch oak). She referred to Mr. Coate's letter that was presented to the Commission. She noted that Mr. Coate asked that there be no horse trails around the cul-de-sac requesting no further disturbance around this area. Mr. Coate also asked her if they want to grow heritage oaks or masses of oaks? She preferred heritage oaks which require a certain amount of thinning of the 12" to 16" oaks that are growing too close together. He had marked the trees that would have to come out or should be thinned. He also noted that 24 inch oak trees are on their decline. Commissioner McMahon asked, while they were still discussing lots 5 & 6 if, in fact, the �/� footprint of the house looked decidedly different? Mrs. Brockway noted that she had E //___e_,() d,,L,. /•----1A---€'- 1 ),,,j Planning Commission Minn :, DRAFT Novt,;nber 9, 1994 Page 3 Ray Miller, architect, actually place houses so they would see how the driveways could run to get away from some of the oak trees. He did this on lots 1 and 6. He tried to save as many oak trees as possible. The house on lot 6 on the latest plan that the Commission received has been changed to show the new cul-de-sac and a one story house. Raymond Miller, architect, noted that none of the pool structures are within setback lines. Commissioner Gottlieb commented that the Planning Co mission noted that on lots 5 and 6, because of the new driveway configuration, would like shared driveways. She felt that the driveway accesses were coming out so close together that if you started with a shared driveway than took off, it would be a much nicer pattern than having two driveways right next to each other entering a cul-de-sac. Ms. Niles noted that the actual final driveway design should be discussed at the Site Development stage. It is good to let the applicant know that this is a concern. Commissioner Gottlieb noted that she would like lot 6 to enter off of lot 5. Mr. Somekh, 25625 Moody Road, was concerned with the lot density on this subdivision and the layout of the houses. Jean Struthers, Environmental Design Committee, was concerned with the swale. She did not feel 10 feet on each side of the swale was enough. The swale is already in the setback. She suggested a planting easement. She did like the revised driveway on lot 6. She asked what assurance would one buyer have from the next owner to preserve the trees? Chairman Schreiner commented unless they had a conservation easement, they would not have that assurance. It was notedthat the tree ordinance would not protect all the heritage oak trees. That is why in the previous discussion by the Commission they wanted to see the larger oak trees and clumps identified, then discuss what to do with the clumps of oaks. Thinning of the oaks had been discussed previously. Consideration for the character of the property was still a concern of the Commission. If they wanted to retain some of character through the clumps of oaks, they would need to place a conservation easement over them. Ms. Niles discussed the tree ordinance, recommending the Commission request that the CC&R's address the conservation easement trees as well as the heritage oak trees and add this to the conditions of approval. Jeff Lea, project engineer, discussed the drainage swale and the fact that there was not a particularly large amount of run off occurring at the site. Part of the process going from the tentative map to the final improvement document stage, they have to satisfy staff, making sure that the swale showing plus any other drainage facilities, are sized to handle any credible run off during the life time of the project. Commissioner Gottlieb, in discussing the drainage swale, asked about the water increase due to the future homes? Mr. Peterson commented he did not feel this has been calculated by engineering. By placing a condition of approval that it will be designed to Planning Commission Mi Litcs DRAFT Nov;:.nber 9, 1994 Page 4 the satisfaction of.the City Engineer, they can check this during the design process. He felt Mr. Lea has addressed the problems and will be working with the City Engineer. CLOSED PUBLIC HEARING Commissioner Stutz noted that they had previously asked for a map showing heritage oaks (12 inches in diameter or over) which has not been provided. She counted from a previous sheet, 49 heritage oaks on this property. She wanted to see a map without houses, showing only the heritage oaks. They need to consider the tree ordinance as written. She felt that any heritage oaks taken down should be reviewed at Site Development time on the individual lot, not on the property as a whole (before subdivided). She felt there was a good area for four lots, perhaps five lots without disturbance to the oak trees. She did not feel six lots was possible. Commissioner Gottlieb was concerned with the tightness on lots 3 and 4. If they approved six lots, many restrictions would need to be placed on them so there would be no difficulty experience at the time of Site Development. Shewould like to see a conservation easement placed over the oak tree clumps (Moody Road). Instead of having a straight-line conservation easement, they would have one which would include the clumps of oaks. She would like a conservation easement over the clumps on lot 4, continuing to the lot line and possibly a conservation easement over the clump of trees on lot 2 and between lots 4 and 5. Further discussion ensued regarding the Town tree ordinance and Sec. 9, pages 939 and 956 from the Municipal Code. Commissioner Doran agreed with the layout of the six lots noting they need to look at each lot individually and discuss consideration in the conditions for views, stepping foundations, stepping roofs and certain elevations which wsll b e,,iGved from other properties. Regarding the drainage swale, she felt they were relying on the enginee4to adequately design the swale with an overall 26 feet on top of the 18 feet along the road way for the path, this would be too much property. She felt they should take another look at this request. The two lots with some constraints are lot 4 and lot 6. Those are the lots they should look at placing some considerations for conditions. Another concern was for the existing residence on the proposed lots 3 and 4 which are currently occupied by renters. They should be advised of the possible hardships living through subdivision improvements. She agreed with having conservation easements over the clumps of oak trees to protect new property owners. Chairman Schreiner had a problem with six lots. The lots are constrained for several reasons (oak trees, drainage swale). She was in favor of putting 10 feet conservation easements on either side of the swale. They had asked initially if there was a conceptual plan for a five lot subdivision. Mrs. Brockway discussed heritage oaks which are marked on the map, 12 inches in diameter or more. She discussed the division of each lot individually and Mr. Coate's tree removal recommendations. Chairman Schreiner noted that they did not have a problem with the trees by Altamont; the ones they have a problem with are by Moody Road because of the trail, the swale and the number of oak Planning Commission Minute:, DRAFT • Novo.giber 9, 1994 Page 5 tree clumps. Mrs. Brockway's vision of the lots and a buyer's vision will be different with different needs. They have difficulty with lots 2, 3 and 4. Chairman Schreiner asked the applicant if she would be willing to show the Commission conceptually a five lot subdivision? Mrs. Brockway responded she would be willing to comply, however she felt the current plan lays itself out nicely. She would be opposed to a five lot subdivision because they have complied with the one acre minimum, they have the MDA/MFA calculations, and she felt what they were trying to do was to the benefit of the community in terms of saving trees, planting and laying the subdivision out from a design point of view. Chairman Schreiner clarified that a.conservation easement does not reduce the floor or development area. What it does do is reduce the placement of site where you can place a house. Commissioner Stutz questioned the need for a Type IIB developed path when there already is a developed native path. She was in favor of asking for the 10 foot easement required, however they could reject it at this time until such time when they need to pick it up. Mr. Peterson noted that if a Type IIB path was conditioned, it would be roughly in the same location: They would not double the width of the path. It would still be a five foot wide path. Chairman Schreiner addressed the Commissions' concerns. The Commission could ask for a re-design, taking a vote or look at the subdivision by going through all the conditions of the negative declaration and the conditions of the subdivision, then taking a vote. The Commission has two options; asking the applicant to return after giving her all the information regarding the clumps of oaks, the heritage oaks that they want saved, the conservation easement which they want over the swale, and the concern that any of the outdoor amenities would go into the setbacks. She asked if the applicant could address these concerns, returning with a redesign. Mrs. Brockway does not want a five lot subdivision. She felt they have designed a subdivision that is buildable for six lots. She did not feel someone should be punished for saving all those trees all these years. She would like the Commission to go through the entire negative declaration and the conditions of approval for the subdivision prior to the Commissions' vote. Discussion ensued regarding the Negative Declaration. Mrs. Brockway requested the Planning Commission discuss all their concerns. Commissioner McMahon asked if the applicant could consider presenting a plan of the tree clusters with the thinning as recommended by her arborist so she could propose to the Commission the location of the swale and the easement. Also include the location of the pathway, the fault, the houses, and the setback lines. Mrs. Brockway asked if they were only interested in the oak trees or are they also concerned with the non-native trees? Commissioner Stutz had a map indicating the trees of concern which she will share with Mrs. Brockway. Commissioner Stutz noted that of the 42 other trees that come from the seven inch and up diameter, most of them were non natives. There are a few of them that are very mature pine trees that would need to come down. A couple of the canfour trees that are fairly large provide beautiful color in the fall'. She would not like to see those all come down. She also mentioned the fir trees, spruce trees, and evergreens. She noted that if Planning Commission 1\4inutc:. DRAFT Nov.:'iber 9, 1994 Page 6 they realigned the lot line on lot 4 along the barn, it would save some oak trees for lot 5. She discussed putting lots 3 and 4 together, where the old house was located with a large grassy area., Commissioner Gottlieb was concerned with any triangular lots. She did feel that the applicant did a great job on the design of the lots, however, whether the lots are too constrained is the question. MOTION SECONDED AND PASSED: Motion by Commissioner Gottlieb and seconded by Commissioner McMahon to schedule an adjourned work session meeting on site November 19 at 10:00 a.m. and an adjourned special public hearing meeting December 1 at 5:00 p.m. AYES: Chairman Schreiner, Commissioners Stutz, Doran, McMahon & Gottlieb NOES: None ' ABSENT: Commissioner Cheng 3.2 LANDS OF VUCINICH, 13826 Page Mill Road (179-93-TM-ND-GD); Review of revisions to the Negative Declaration and Tentative Map (continued). Mr. Peterson introduced this item calling attention to items which have been placed in the Commission's box: preliminary storm drain plan designed by Wilsey and Ham which had been presented to the City Council with favorable remarks; the new MDA/MFA figures for the lots that were redesign; and the applicant's engineer prepared driveway profile drawing. There had been a drainage meeting Monday, November 5th with the neighbors. Mr. Peterson, in answer to a question, noted that the time period allowed by law was approaching expiration at the City Council's September meeting. Since there were still issues to be dealt with, the Council wanted to get everything resolved (payment of the storm drainage system) prior to any further hearing of the subdivision . This left the Council with a decision of either approving it, denying it or asking the Vucinichs to allow for a continuance. With the Vucinichs approval, this was continued to the first City Council meeting in December. The application was again before the Planning Commission as the Council had passed on some concerns specific to the tentative map as well as the negative declaration. Mr. Peterson noted that it was the City Attorney's feeling that with the revisions that were made in the specific areas which were brought out in. the staff report. Those changes were substantial enough that both the negative declaration and tentative map needed to come back to the Planning Commission. The City Council wanted the storm drainage issues resolved first since it was all tied in with the negative declaration as well as being a neighborhood concern. Commissioner Gottlieb noted that on the road way just above the property where the drainage pipe comes through, there seems to be fill with concrete (on the subdivision side of Moon Lane). She asked if this was part of the subdivision improvements. Mr. Peterson noted that they have looked at this and condition #18 addresses this situation. OPENED PUBLIC HEARING • Planning Commission Iviinutei, DRAFT Nov:..:nber 9, 1994 Page 7 Alan Huntzinger, Civil Engineer, representing the Vucinichs felt that the Town's consultant on the drainage has done a wonderful job although its not 100% completed with only minor changes needed to the plan. He discussed multiple driveways noting that they have reduced the number of openings onto Moon Lane to one; they have reduced the slope of the new driveways to 15% or less; they have adjusted the lot yields (1.16 LUF) to be approximately equal on lots 2 and 3: He requested a clarification to the conservation easement to use the area for normal yard or landscape purposes (vineyard, orchard). The reason for the conservation easement was that it is the bottom of a drainage area and a strip on lot 3 is a little too steep to allow normal grading on it. He felt someone moving in should have the option to plant 50 apple trees or perhaps plant some grass in the bottom and play baseball. He was asking that they have normal agricultural use of the conservation easement without being restricted. He asked for clarification of condition#11 as he felt this was in direct conflict with City Council. It was his understanding that the Town was to pay for the engineering costs of the storm drain system. This would be a major expense to the applicant. Mr. Peterson apologized to the applicant if this was not made clear enough. The costs and the cost splits that have been discussed to date have all included proration of engineering costs, that part would be paid for by the Town and part would be paid for by the applicants. The Council indicated that the Town would front the money. The implication was not that this would be a Town cost but they would contract it out and put the money up front to proceed with the design. Through the cost sharing discussions that occurred with the Council subcommittee and staff, it was discussed that it would be prorated between the applicant and the Town. He apologized if this was not made clear. Mr. Huntzinger reviewed the Monday night meeting (November 14th) regarding the drainage on Moon Lane, presenting the Commissioners with the storm drain design. Mr. Huntzinger starting the review with page 2. Other items of interest were the fire truck turnaround and no access road,through the Chown or Vucinich property. The basic cost is $150,000 with $30,000 just to get through the Chown property which he believes the Town has agreed to pay (shown on page 4): The Vucinichs' have agreed to pay for the remainder, $70,000, which will bring the storm drain all the way to the creek. This excludes the cross-under for Nancy Bavor as she volunteered that she would like that put in and pay for making that connection (crosses under Moon Lane). If someone subdivides and wants to add more water, more lots, more development area, there is a reimbursement (no dollar figure as yet) fee which would cover the cost of the pipe running from 15 inch up to 24'inch. There should be a hook up fee. Mr. Ewald, 13830'Page Mill Road, was pleased with the Monday night meeting. However, there were some changes made to the negative declaration. He had prepared a letter which was presented to the Commission. The letter covered five items: the negative declaration; the 10 year limit on recovering cost of contribution to the storm drain for Vucinich; connection to the storm drain from a point above the Bavor driveway; size of the trench along his property line; and the dedication of a pathway. Planning Commission Miqutc5 DRAFT Novei.,ber 9, 1994 Page 8 (1) For somereason the revised negative declaration (May 4th) is not part of this report. but has reverted back to the original negative declaration. This needs to be corrected. (2) This was discussed at the Monday meeting. He felt the time limit was arbitrary and unnecessary except as a convenience to the Town keeping track of it. He felt this should be removed entirely or at least extended to 25 years or more. (3) His concern has always been to eliminate the water crossing over Moon Lane onto his property. He noted a.minor but significant change was made,to the storm drainage plan. It was decided at the Monday meeting to eliminate the connection to the storm drain from the Bavor property. The Bavors will have an option to connect, at their expense. The problem is, if they choose not to connect, the water accumulating at that point will necessarily run along and across Moon Lane and onto his property. He has not had an opportunity to discuss this with Mrs. Bavor as yet. (4) He noted that he would not object to a two foot trench to install the storm drain along his property line. Monday's meeting included a.sewer line along the side of the storm drain enlarging the trench to a much larger size, possibly six feet. After some thought, he felt this could pose a threat to the survival of the many trees he has along the property line and possibly the under ground phone and electric lines that have been installed that may be in the way also. Mr. Peterson commented that this proposal does not include a sanitary sewer which has yet to be designed by the applicant' s engineer although there is a potential. There has been discussions regarding when the applicant's engineer designs the sanitary sewer system, there may be the opportunity to run those two utilities very close together in order to save labor costs. Mr. Ewald noted that it appeared to be part of the plan. If it is not part of the plan, it can be discussed at a later time. His concern was for the mature trees. (5) He felt that a path along the route suggested on the plan was inappropriate because as you progress toward the Chown property the path becomes very steep. A "switch back" was discussed. He noted that a path along the route suggested on the plan is inappropriate as there exists a path already in use on the north side of the Vucinich property line. Phyllis Young, 27840 Saddle Court, neighbor, was concerned with the drainage, the potential fire hazard and the rural atmosphere. She asked who is responsible for the upkeep of Moon Lane. She suggested not having the new houses side by side, two story, without landscaping. She would like the houses moved down and not allowing a two story down in the valley. Chairman Schreiner note that the new design shows the houses down at a much lower elevation. With a stepped down foundation you may only,see one story. The two homes will blend by following the contour. Commissioner Gottlieb wants the house no higher than the highest elevation of the property. Tim Chown, 13822 Page Mill, thought the Town was to pay for the engineering costs. He agreed with Mr. Ewald in that the path was not needed. He noted concern regarding Planning Commission l'ar!niitcL, DRAFT Nov..:nber 9, 1994 Page 9 the manhole in the middle of his field. Mr. Huntzinger noted that the September 7, 1994 staff report to the City Council noted that staff was directed to have a storm drain system designed. CLOSED PUBLIC HEARING Mr. Peterson addressed the cost of engineering and Mr. Ewald's concern with the pipeline to the Bavor`s property and the confusion regarding the Town paying for the engineering cost. The Town does not spend public funds on a private street. The engineering costs are factored into the $100,000 which should be approximately $25,000. The total cost of the project ($100,000) was discussed at the Monday night meeting. The tape from the September 7th City Council meeting will be reviewed for clarification and be guided by them. Regarding the fire truck turn around, Mr. Peterson noted that the fire department was asking for a turn around in a narrow area. He has conditioned the turn around to be at the western end where they currently have it proposed, to the satisfaction of the City Engineer and the Los Altos Fire Protection District. Regarding the manhole, Mr. Chown is giving an easement for the entire pipe system which consists of one manhole. Because of the curvature of his property and the drainage swale, the manhole would be a necessary part of the system. He noted that the swale would be re- graded because there is existing erosion at the bottom of the swale now. This would be repaired. The present plan shows rock lining. He has discussed with Mr. Huntzinger, as part of the subdivision improvements, looking at cost saving measures to reduce the cost for the applicant, such as a type of erosion control blanket allowing the grass to grow up through it. The Commission would like this to look as natural as possible. Regarding the concern of extending the 10 year limit on recovering cost of contribution to the storm drain for Vucinich, Mr. Peterson noted that it is difficult to track anything going beyond 10 years. He felt this was a realistic time frame. Ms. Niles noted the time was currently 10:00 p.m. At the beginning of the meeting the Commission indicated a vote would be taken to go past 11:00 p.m. and hopefully not go past 11:30 p.m. The Commission may want to discuss this with the applicants that are remaining on the agenda. Chairman Schreiner felt that they were ready to go into the conditions and modify the negative declaration. She felt they would be discussing this for another half hour. There are three applications to be heard. Ms. Niles noted that the Planning Commission has already reviewed the subdivision. The only thing that has returned are the changes to the negative declaration because of the drainage area and a few modifications to the map design (the driveways). She suggested limiting the discussion to only the changed items which are the negative declaration, the pathway, placement of the houses, the driveway. Commissioner Stutz asked that the fire hydrant not be placed in the middle of the pathway easement. She would also like to explore the possibility of having the driveway enter on the other side of the swale. Chairman Schreiner noted that there was a possibility of not getting to the last two applicants; Lands of McLaren and Lands of Roley. Both applicants expressed a desire to be heard at this meeting. Planning Commission PM,.niitc:a DRAFT Nov:-:Yiber 9, 1994 Page 10 Negative Declaration: it was noted that the Planning Director will make the corrections to the checklist pointed out by Mr. Ewald. She will also make sure Mr. Ewald's concerns as stated in his letter will also be addressed. Drainage: the Commission was satisfied with the discussion presented by the City Engineer. Mr. Peterson discussed further the reasoning behind daylighting pipes. He will make sure the fire hydrant is not in the pathway. The hydrant on plan only shows general location. "Not to be placed within the path" shall be added to Condition 9, after "hydrant". Condition 6 was discussed, without changes. Driveways: Slope is no more than 15% at any point. Commissioner Stutz suggested having the driveway go to the north side of the swale, having only one crossing of the creek and would come much more in on the contour for the driveway. Mr. Peterson noted that the driveway configuration presented was a result of Council expressed concerns. The applicant was trying to address these concerns. Mr. Peterson referred to the proposed driveway profiles, that shows the driveway profile with a common driveway as it comes in off Moon Lane, then as it travels along the creek where the driveway is crossing the upper culvert, it's filling over the culvert, so there will be a couple of feet over that pipe. By filling, which you need to do, it allows the grade to flatten substantially. If this is not done, the existing grade will be near 20%. By designing the driveway in this manner the applicant's engineer was able to keep the driveway grades down flatter. Placement of the homes: The houses should be staggered on the lot with the height of the houses not above the highest contour line. Suggested on lot 3, it would 380, lot 2, 370. Added to condition 24 would be "houses to be staggered", "no retaining walls over two to three feet for outdoor amenities". Conservation easement use: Agricultural use as long as it is outside the water course; no formal gardens. Jean Struthers requested not allowing exotic species in water ways that can travel down stream and invade other properties. She asked that they restrict the planting in the waterway area to non-invasive native species which the Commission agreed. Mr. Huntzinger asked if grass was allowed for a possible lawn. The Commission suggested native grasses. MOTION SECONDED AND PASSED: Motion by Commissioner Gottlieb and seconded - by Commissioner McMahon to approve the Negative Declaration for the Lands of Vucinich as corrected by Mr. Ewald (replacing the Environmental Checklist with correct version). AYES: Chairman Schreiner, Commissioners Stutz, Doran, McMahon & Gottlieb NOES: None ABSENT: Commissioner Cheng MOTION SECONDED AND PASSED: Motion by Commissioner Gottlieb and seconded • by Commission Doran to approve the Tentative Map for a three lot subdivision for the Lands of Vucinich with the following changes to the conditions of approval: Planning Commission i DRAFT Novc,;nber 9, 1994 Page 11 11. Change "10" year reimbursement agreement to "15" years; and clarify as per City Council tape as to the applicant's share of the engineering costs of the storm drain system and if necessary, staff will modify the condition. 9. Change the first sentence to read "Fire protection improvements, including installation of a fire hydrant not to be placed within pathway, ...". 15.. Leave as conditioned. 3. Include " additional easement may be needed in corner of property to accommodate switch back which will be to the satisfaction of the City Engineer". • 24. Change second paragraph to include: houses to be staggered, houses shall be no higher than the highest elevation of the property; and no retaining walls over three feet for outdoor amenities. AYES: Chairman Schreiner, Commissioners McMahon, Gottlieb, Stutz & Doran NOES: None ABSENT: Commissioner Cheng This item will appear on the City Council public hearing agenda December 7, 1994. Brief break at 10:40 p.m. 3.3 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. Staff had nothing further to add. Commissioner Doran asked staff if, at subdivision time, if there were any discussion regarding the need for the amount of fill on any of the lots as they were presented? Ms. Niles felt Mr. Lohr could answer this question. Commissioner Gottlieb asked if, on slopes over 14%, are they required a step down foundations? Commissioner McMahon asked if there was a lot cross section? OPENED PUBLIC HEARING Steve Lohr, 586 Lagunita Drive, Stanford, land developers. To answer previous questions, there were no discussions at tentative map approval time regarding the amount of grading for one lot versus another. He noted that they usually design and, build custom homes for particular buyers. This particular lot falls on the back side of the • subdivision, being one of the steeper lots of the subdivision. The previous lots which have been heard by the Planning Commission required grading, primarily in terms of cut. As a result, they have generated a great deal of surplus dirt on the property (on lots 1, 23 and 8A). Fortunately, on lot 20, there is a need for this dirt for three reasons; for the existing roadway, to have a minimal backyard, and to try to balance the dirt within the subdivision which should avoid the heavy truck traffic along Stonebrook. He further Planning Commission Minutes- DRAFT Nova. iber 9, 1994 Page 12 discussed the design of the home, and not mixing the MDA or MFA. They paid particular attention to views of neighbors, ridgeline, and preserving views. Commissioner Gottlieb asked Mr. Lohr if he could use decking which would reduce the amount of fill which she felt was excessive. Mr. Lohr commented that they had looked into decking, howeverthere were other concerns: they wanted some minimal flat area behind the house for potential erosion protection, and allow his clients to have minimal plantings outside their house at ground level. It was noted there was an excess of 5,000 c.y. of fill on the subdivision. Lot 19 would require fill; lot 18 has the potential to balance out. Chairman Schreiner noted that on these types of lots they encourage step down design so it will flow with the contour. Mr. Lohr noted that he had discussed this with his clients. They are in their 60's and plan to spend the rest of their lives in this house. They felt from a safety standpoint that they would rather not have steps within the house. As a result Mr. Lohr has stepped down the garage to work with the topography. MOTION SECONDED AND PASSED: Motion by Commissioner Gottlieb and seconded by Commissioner Stutz to proceed past 11:00 p.m. AYES: Chairman Schreiner, Commissioners Stutz & Gottlieb NOES: Commissioners Doran & McMahon ABSENT: Commissioner Cheng Discussion resumed. CLOSED PUBLIC HEARING Commissioner Doran noted that during the past three meetings they have been very restrictive on lots on steep slopes. She cannot make findings to grant this flat of a pad. She felt that they should look into stepping the house into the hillside which is a consistent request. Commissioner Stutz discussed the subdivision requirements. She noted this was a flat lot house, however not a very big house (4,584 square feet). She was not sure why the Town ever placed conditions on cut and fill originally. Commissioner Gottlieb discussed the subdivision ordinance noting any lot over 14% slope should be a step down foundation. She felt the fill was excessive. One problem is that they are going to have to continue the fill to the next two lots to make the area appear'more natural. Commissioner McMahon requested a longitudinal section through the site to assess the impact of what is being proposed, showing the house and topography. She felt this was a flat lot design on a steep lot. The two drain lines to the east and west appear to terminate in a close proximity of two trees. She suggested running past, not directly to the trees. Chairman Schreiner asked Mr. Lohr if he could try to reduce the amount of fill. Mr. Lohr commented that they could certainly try to reduce the fill. They have spent time to try to Planning Commission M niit :f.__- DRAFT Nov-,mber 9, 1994 Page 13 reduce the fill. He pointed out that the energy dissipaters are below the Oak trees. The reason for the location of the energy dissipaters is that they cannot take them within the conservation easement. They need to stay outside. Also they do not want water coming onto any fill area. The other dissipater is located right in an existing swale so they would not be creating another swale. Further discussion ensued regarding the driveway and the location of the garage. A suggestion for using a wood bridge was discussed. MOTION SECONDED AND PASSED BY CONSENSUS: Motion by Commissioner Doran, seconded by Commissioner McMahon and passed by consensus to continue the Lands of Lohr to the November 30th meeting, looking to stepping the house into the hillside, lessening the hardscape for the driveway (possibly by changing the elevations of the house) and reducing the amount of fill. 3.4 LANDS OF MCLAREN, APN 182-28-027 and 182-28-040 Altamont Road and Zappettini Court (171-94-ZP-LLA); A request for a Lot Line Adjustment. Staff had nothing further to add to the staff report. OPENED PUBLIC HEARING Jim Wright, engineer, noted that the lot line adjustment was requested by Mr. McLaren due to the fact that there is a level area which is currently on the two subdivision lots below his property. Mr. McLaren felt that it would be more appropriate and usable for the property above rather than the two properties below where you would have to climb up walls to access. Commissioner Gottlieb understands that they cannot condition lot line adjustments, however the bottom of this property holds the key to a pathway and she asked if they would consider an easement. She noted that the Town does have the money in the budget for the construction. The trail up to his property is beautiful. Mr. Wright noted that he had discussed this with the applicant. For clarification, the easement would be part of the bottom 10 feet over Parcel 2. He will further discuss this with the applicant in person. CLOSED PUBLIC HEARING MOTION SECONDED AND PASSED: Motion by Commissioner Gottlieb and seconded by Commissioner Stutz to approve the Lands of McLaren lot line adjustment. AYES: Chairman Schreiner, Commissioners Doran, McMahon, Gottlieb & Stutz NOES: None ABSENT: Commissioner Cheng Planning; Commission MinUtc:: - DRAFT Nov:..nber 9, 1994 • Page 14 This item will appear on the City Council consent calendar December 7, 1994. 3.5 LANDS OF ROLEY, 12200 Winton Way (165-94-ZP-SD-GD-VAR); A • request for a Site Development Permit to rebuild a fire damaged residence - with a major addition, and a Variance to exceed the allowable MDA and MFA. Commissioner Gottlieb noted a possible conflict of interest and stepped down from hearing this application. Commissioner Doran-felt it was not clear as to whether or not the existing foundation will remain or whether they are going to remove the foundation and build a new foundation for the house. There was some discussion in Cotton's letter that the existing foundation was okay to build on with a second story. She asked if the foundation was to • be left, could they add a condition that the foundation will unconditionally be left and it will not be removed at a later date if they decide they need a new foundation. Ms. Niles noted that it was her understanding that the foundation will remain. Gary Ahern, Vocal Point Design, applicant's designer, addressed the question, noting that the existing foundation will remain 90% intact. If there is an unforeseen reinforcing that would need to be done of the existing condition, it would be under pinning. OPENED PUBLIC HEARING Mrs. Roley, 12200 Winton Way, applicant, with the aid of the overhead projector, made a presentation addressing the staff report and variance findings. She noted that it was incorrect that the entire house would be demolished because at several meetings with Ms. Niles they had explained that the garage and foundation would remain as is as they • were not affected by the fire. She commented that in previous meetings with the • Planning Director, she agreed to support the point that the existing square footage in the garage would,be grandfathered and that she would not include it into the MFA calculations. The staff report does,not reflect this. If staff were to grandfather the garage, the variance for MFA would be approximately 500 square feet, not the 1,200 square feet as noted in staff report. The Planning Director also agreed that the extra road right-of-way dedications given to the Town would not affect their MFA/MDA calculations. The staff report does not indicate this. Mrs. Roley noted that they have had to give little pieces of their land away to the City which has really affected their calculations. This is why they are now asking for a variance. They submitted findings with their application which they felt were very valid. The staff report has not viewed those aspects of their findings in a fair manner. The report does not discuss the age of the development, the house destroyed by fire and the fact that new ordinances are being applied to their lot which was accepted by the Town as conforming in 1963. She further discussed the variance findings, noting the loss of their house by fire in April, 1994. Further discussion ensued regarding: been community members since 1979; the age of the subdivision (1963); using today's standard; a non-conforming lot; variance findings; Planning Commission Mi nu"t;;. - DRAFT Nove:..iber 9, 1994 Page 15 other houses in the area being two story; new home being constructed on the existing foundation, as much as possible; will conform with all requirements such as heights, setbacks; grading to a minimum; non-obtrusive; and compliance with the zoning ordinances. Mrs. Roley felt that the staff report did not address the age of the property and the fact that new ordinances have been applied to a lot that had been accepted by the Town in 1963. Because of this fact their property should be totally grandfathered and current ordinances should not be applied. Otherwise the Town of Los Altos Hills will be held responsible for causing their lot to be classified as non-conforming and depriving their property of privileges that are enjoyed by others in the Town. They also disagree with the staff's recommendations with respect to MDA and MFA calculations. She also addressed the neighbor's concerns (Odoms, Bruchs and Becks). She discussed remodeling, the architectural committee, the pine trees along Winton Way, in compliance with current ordinance regarding height, property values, the Bailey's concerns. Chairman Schreiner noted that the recommendations in the staff report were not simply due to the neighborhood concerns. It is for the ordinances in Town and the requirement for findings for the variance. This is essentially what the Commission will look at although they do consider the impact on the neighborhood. She asked if Mrs. Roley could simply refer to specific issues so they could move ahead. Mr. Roley, applicant, commented that their project will not negatively impact their neighborhood. The neighbors on Winton Way are al\in agreement in that fact. Gary Ahern pointed out to the Commission the site constraints of the lot and the only level area on the lot off of Camino Hermosa which was laid out when the house was built and basically the only place on the site that the Santa Clara Health Department would allow a septic system. He further discussed the placement of the house. They have tried to minimize the impact by forcing the upstairs over as far to the right of the project as possible. Chairman Schreiner noted that there were several letters received this evening which they have not had an opportunity to read. She suggested taking a few minutes to read the letters presented this evening. Barrett Bruch, 12186 Winton Way, noted that he has retracted the entirety of the November 4th letter. There are two November 9th letters which supersedes his letter of November 4th. He believed it also superseded Dr. Odom's letter. There is also a letter from Don Beck dated November 4th which is withdrawing his earlier letter. He believed that there were two pertinent pieces of communication; the letter from the planning committee dated November 9th, and his one page letter as adjacent residence. Wilbur Bailey, 23670 Camino Hermoso Road, above the Roleys; discussed the property owner's rights. He recommended not granting any variances as the proposed house would block his view and invade his privacy from his family room. Fern Batley, 23670 Camino Hermoso Road, noting that they were very careful to buy in a fully developed area to preclude this kind of situation where they would get into some kind of confrontation with neighbors. Planning Commission Minute:, DRAFT Nove,,iber 9, 1994 Page 16 CLOSED PUBLIC I-IEARING Chairman Schreiner noted her sympathy for anyone who has lost their home due to fire, earthquake or other disasters. However, the Town has to follow certain procedures. As reported by staff, if the house were to be re-built as was existing, there would be no problem. The applicants have elected to expand their house. Code requirements are required from everyone in Town which require taking dedication of road right-of-way and findings for a variance, being consistent in this procedure. She asked that the Commission address some of the issues brought up to give the applicants'direction. Commissioner Doran discussed the size of the lot being under one acre and the need to take road right-of-ways and at times creating non-conforming lots. She explained that road right-of-ways were not just for roadways but for the installation of future public utilities and/or the superhighway cable system. Also of issue was the 700 square foot garage being counted currently as,floor area. This is a consistent finding that staff has to take into consideration. Mr. Roley noted that he was led to believe that the garage would be grandfathered in and this would be the position Ms. Niles would be taking. Ms. Niles responded that they have been discussing this and she had told the Roleys and their architect and engineers that she would not be able to support this but they continued to ask for anything she thought the Commission would listen to as an argument. Ms Niles had told them that this would be something they could bring up because it is a different situation, however she still could not support the variance. Mr. Ahern questioned Ms. Niles response noting he was under the impression that considering the garage which prior to March of this year was the basement with three sides under ground, that she could support that if they asked for a variance of the garage not to be counted as floor area. Ms. Niles noted that he was mistaken. Commissioner-Schreiner noted that regardless of staff's recommendation, the Commission is an independent body, looking at the rules and regulations. They have to be very mindful of variance requests, making sure they comply with findings. Commissioner McMahon discussed the second floor addition which has several problems. It is not in compliance with codes. On three sides of the addition they have a • two story wall. This is in conflict with Town guidelines. The second floor should be off- set. She felt the uphill property would have a major impact on views. Chairman Schreiner noted that her main concern was the variance and findings. She could not make the first two findings. The fact that the house was destroyed by fire, that • it is a subdivision from 1963, and the Town now has updated codes, is not a finding. She felt because they did have some area that is grandfathered in was to their benefit. She asked the applicants if they would consider a re-design to meet the MFA figures and they would grandfather in the MDA. She noted that they have two choices: re-design or denial. She further discussed the basement ordinance and clarified their MDA and MFA. Mr. Roley noted that their septic system is taking up most of the area. He asked if • Planning Commission M mite DRAFT NovLmber 9, 1994 Page 17 • the 4,000 square feet of floor area would include or exclude the garage. If it would exclude the garage, this would be very acceptable to them. It was noted that the floor area would include the garage. Views, bulk and mass were discussed. The Town Design Guidelines were discussed. Mrs. Roley felt that they were being unfairly restricted, being told they cannot add the extra square footage to the house. The slope density formula was discussed and complying with all of the Town's ordinances, not simply some. Commissioner Stutz noted that she could not support the house design because, in her opinion, it was a three story design (the front elevation shows all three of the stories). She asked that they'ieturn with a re-design placing the 4,000 square feet on the level lot. The denial process and fees were explained to Mr. and Mrs. Roley who requested a vote by the Planning Commission. MOTION SECONDED AND PASSED: Motion by Commissioner Doran and seconded • by Commissioner Stutz to deny the Site Development application with the findings as submitted in the staff report. AYES: Chairman Schreiner, Commissioners McMahon, Stutz & Doran• NOES: None ABSTAIN: Commissioner Gottlieb. ABSENT: Commissioner Cheng 4. CONSENT CALENDAR None. • 5. REPORT FROM THE CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF NOVEMBER 2, 1994 5.1 Commissioner McMahon's report was continued. 5.2 Planning Commission Representative for November 16 will be Commissioner Doran. Planning Commission Minnt,c;J DRAFT Nov:.•nber 9, 1994 Page 18 6. NEW BUSINESS 6.1 Re-scheduling of the Monday, November 28th meeting to Wednesday, November 30th at 7:00 p.m. which will follow the joint City Council and Planning Commission meeting starting at 5:30 p.m. PASSED BY CONSENSUS: To re-schedule previously scheduled meeting from November 28th to Wednesday,.November 30th at 7:00 p.m. Chairman Schreiner noted that sometime in the future she will request a joint meeting with staff, the City Attorney and the Planning Commissioners when the open seat for Commissioner has been filled. 6.2 Discussion of the Los Altos Hills Holistic Survey sample submitted by Commissioner McMahon. Continued. 7. OLD BUSINESS 7.1 General Plan Elements-Schedule for work sessions. The Planning Commission will meeting on November 15th at 5:30 p.m. to discuss the . Land Use Element 7.2 Procedures for enforcing the completion of landscape requirements and use of landscape deposits and landscape agreements. Continued. 7.3 Color Board. Report from the sub-committee. Continued. • 7.4 Discussion of the In-Lieu pathway fee policy. Continued. 8. APPROVAL OF MINUTES 8.1 Approval of the October 12, 1994 Minutes. • PASSED BY CONSENSUS: To approve the October 12, 1994 minutes with the following changes: page 3, first paragraph, expand discussion; page 4, fifth paragraph, second sentence, changing "easement" to "paving"; page 5, fourth paragraph, changing "adding" to "deleting" and "radius" to "driveway"; page 6, second line, changing "setbacks" to • "setback"; and page 6, third line under OPENED PUBLIC HEARING, changing "drainage" to "damage". 8.2 Approval of the October 26, 1994 Minutes. PASSED BY CONSENSUS: To approve the October 26, 1994 minutes. Planning Commission Mintrtcq DRAFT • Nova. tber 9, 1994 Page 19 9. REPORT FROM THE SITE DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE MEETINGS OF OCTOBER 18, 25 AND NOVEMBER 1, 1994 9.1 LANDS OF MOVASSATE, 12620 Zappettini Court; A request for a Site Development Permit for a pool, landscape plan and related improvements. Approved with conditions October 18, 1994. 9.2 LANDS OF MCCREADY, 12105 Oak Park Court; A request for a Site • Development Permit-for a landscape plan and related improvements. Approved with conditions October 18, 1994. 9.3 LANDS OF TRIMBLE, 27920 Roble Alto; A request for a Site Development Permit for a pool, deck and gazebo. Approved with conditions October 25, 1994. 9.4 LANDS OF DRISCOLL, 11683 Dawson Drive; A request for a Site Development Permit for a pool and deck. Approved with conditions November 1, 1994. 10. ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned by consensus at 12:35 a.m. Respectfully submitted, Lani Lonberger • Planning Secretary