Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout8.1 961 DRAFT Minutes of a Regular Meeting Town.of Los Altos Hills PLANNING COMMISSION Wednesday,May 10, 1995,7:00 p.m.. Council Chambers,26379 FremontRoad cc: Cassettes#10-95 (4) 1. ROLL CALL AND PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE The Planning Commission meeting was called to order at 7:05 p.m. in the Council Chambers at Town Hall. Present: Chairman Schreiner,Commissioners Cheng,Doran,Finn,Gottlieb, McMahon&Stutz Staff: Mike Porto,Acting Town Planner;Sheryl Kolf,Assistant Engineer;Susan Manca,Planner;Lani Lonberger,Planning Secretary 2. PRESENTATIONS FROM THE FLOOR None. 3. CONSENT CALENDAR None. 4. PUBLIC HEARINGS 4.1 LANDS OF NOGHREY,27935 Roble Blanco (4-95-ZP-SD); A request for a Site Development Permit for a second story addition and remodel. Staff had nothing further to add to the stafireport. Staff clarified that the entire exterior will be removed and put into stucco. The reduction in parking area still provides the required four parking spaces: OPENED PUBLIC HEARING Kambiz Noghrey, 27935 Roble Blanco, applicant,and Glush Dada,5451 Ambly Drive, San Jose, architect,were available for questions. The small basement of approximately 126 square feet is not being rernoved;it falls under the definition of a basement thus not counted as floor area. • Planning Commission Minutes DRAFT _ May 10, 1995 Page 2 CLOSED PUBLIC TESTIMONY Discussion ensued. There were no trees to be removed. Commissioners Doran,Cheng and Finn had no roblems with the small addition noting it was an improvement over the existing situa t'on. Commis loner Stutz commented that presently this was a wood shingle house wi very few tr es for screening. From Matadero Creek,the house is very visible.- She aid not agree ith the use of a tile roof and stucco exterior suggesting colors with a 30%reflective val a so the structure will not be more prominent then it is- - currently. The applicant could use a ceramic tile roof rattier than a red tile roof. Commissioner Sti itz noted a p 1 on the property,however pool equipment is not indicated on the plan. She sug ested including a condition of approval for the location of the pool equiprent. The applicant noted that there was a portion between the pool and pool equipment enclosed by shrubbery which is not shown on the plan. She further discussed remode,�ls in general. At times they are more etensive than originally approved. She s O ggested wor ' g for a condition to add for all remodels, "if the remodel requires 1/2 or mor of the exterior walls to be replaced (total removal of the walls),the plan shall be return d to the Planning Commission for updating (compliance) to current code." Mr. Porto asked if it was her concern that once remodeling is approved and at a start of construction it found that more of the structure needs td be removed an originally anticipated;the structure would be restructured not ip accordance ith the approved plans? 'Commissioner Stutz noted this was the onlyay they hav to update properties to present codes (MDA/MFA requirements) . A�an example,if an applicant took down all walls, the MDA would be 5,000 square feet and the MFA ould be 4,000 square feet. Commissioner Gottlieb commepted that if the structure was not being painted in darker colors,she would request heav I landscaping with large trees for screening. Commissioner McMahon felt a design was excellent,however the area is a rural community and structures should blend with-the-wooded,hilly terrain as noted in - Town ordinances, Design Guidelines and General Plan,keeping a rural flavor. This design does not comply. Chairman Schreiner noted that this house would be prominent when completed t�ecause of the architecture. She would like a color restriction and a landscape plan. It was noted at the applicant's choice of colors were a dark gray (charcoal) tile for the roof and a light gray for the stucco. MOTION SECONDED AND P SSED: Motion by Commissioner Cheng and seconded by Commissioner Doran to app ove the site developmentlpermit for first and second 1 story additions artd remodel wi the following changes to the conditions of approval: #4, adding that the roof shall be a darker color (charcoal),and the reflectivity value range for the structure shall be etween 40% or lower and trim under 50%reflectivity value;#3,landscaping will be r viewed by the Site Development Committee(standard condition wording); add to#1 that no landscaping,lighting or irrigation shall be within five feet of the pathway;'add an additional condition with wording to the affect Planning Commission Minutes DRAFT May 10, 1995 Page 3 that if the remodel requires 21/2 or more of exterior walls to be replaced,the plan shall be returned to the Planning Commission for updating to present codes. AYES: ,.Chairman Schreiner,Commissioner s Stutz,:Gottlieb,Cheng,Finn&Doran NOES: . .Commissioner McMahon This item will be reviewed by the City Council for approval prior to the 21 day appeal period. 4.2 LANDS OF CURLEY,.;14127 Miranda Road (28-95-ZP-SD); A request for a Site Development Permit for single and two story additions. Staff had nothing further to,add to the staff report., Chairman Schreiner questioned Condition#16, asking staff if they knew if it is required or if the dedication will change the development area numbers. Ms. Kolf commented that thenumbers reflect a reduction already taken place and the surveyor showed a 30 foot half widths,however she has not had an opportunity to check this against the title report. The report reflects the final numbers regardless. This is a formality making sure the dedication has already taken place. It was noted that the pathway on Miranda was an old path. The applicant would be required to upgrade their portion of the pathway as required currently. OPENED PUBLIC HEARING John Barton,359 De Leon Avenue,Fremont,architect,discussed the location of the project being in the extreme north west corner of the property approximately 250 feet from Fremont Road. The project is pushing Out a little to the front to expand the kitchen and the breakfast nook and pushing out to the rear to expand the dining room,add a music room and bedroom on the ground floor. The existing balcony which comes off the rear of the house is within the rear yard setbacks. The expansion-will not encroach into the setback with a small,portion of the balcony removed. Theend result will provide move_privacy_for their neighbor. He questioned.condition#15 regarding roughening of the driveway and walkway. It was noted that the pathway is only on one side of the street on Miranda Road. The ability to meander the pathway to avoid the power vault and mailboxes was discussed. Mr. Barton noted that the pavement is approximately 20,feet wide. If you have,a 30 foot half width from edge of pavement to their property line, there would be 20 feet. They would preferplacing the pathway in front of their landscaping rather than removing the landscaping. The Commission felt, they had ample room to move the path back;off the road without going into their landscaping . Mr. Barton also questioned#116,noting the dedication has already been • recorded in 1957. It was noted that the pool lequipment was in an enclosed structure. James Curley, 14127 Miranda Road,applicant,discussed pathway requirements. The Commission requested staff to provide a template of driveway design standards which they felt would be very helpful on future projects: . i r Planning Commission Minute DRAFT May 10, 1995 Page 4 CLOSED PUBLIC TESTIMO Discussion ensued with sugge ted changes to the conditions of approval: #4,changing only the first senence to read "I xisting paint colors shall be used on'the additions of the house to match a existing st cture";#7,delete "dose to, "adding "within 18 feet of the development area and 15 feet of floor area of the maximum levels (etc.);and#15,, adding to the second sentence 7 shall be roughened or removed ...";#16, add "if necessary";and adding an additional condition noting"if the remodel requires 21/2 or more of exterior walls to be re laced,the plan shall be returned to the Planning Commission for tipdating to p esent codes." MOTION SECONDED AND P SED: Motion by Commissioner McMahon and seconded by Commissioner G ttlieb to approve the site development permit for first and second story additions an remodel with changes to the conditions of approval as noted. AYES: Chairman Schre' er,Commissioners Cheng Finn;Gottlieb,Stutz,Doran &McMahon NOES: None This item will be reviewed by the City Council for approval prior to the 21 day appeal period. - 4.3 LANDS OF CO DSON, 13020 Cumbra Vista Court(22-95-ZP-SD-GD- VAR); A'request or'a Site Development Permit for a minor addition and structural upgra ,and a variance to allow the maximum development area (MDA)to be exceeded. Commissioner Cheng noted di ficulty in gaining access to-the property. She suggested staff_makeIhe_apphcants_awarr of the need for access to the property. Mr.Porto suggested providing the Comnssion with applicant's telephone numbers so appointments-to view the project could be made. Chairman Schreiner commented that the application should be judg ed on the merits of this particular application and not on anything that has been reviewed previously. She further asked how much of the lower area being endosd is counted. Ms. Manca noted that the maximum development area for this lot was 5, 00'square feet. The applicant is already exceeding the MDA by 2,015 square feet(gran fathered). Currently,the applicant is asking for an additional 917 square feet The' ariance requ st is for enclosing the open lattice work area which has • not previously been counted as'development area. ' ' ' OPENED PUBLIC HEARING Planning Commission Minutes ,DRAFT May 10, 1995 Page 5 Scott Conradson and Julie Wilker, 13020 Cumbra Vista Court,applicants,with their architect Andrew Young,261 Hamilton Avenue,Palo Alto,were present. Mr. Conradson discussed the purpose of the variance which was for a multi-functional upgrade to provide them with safety;maintaining the property value,and provide some additional storage and work space. From a safety standpoint, a pole house is typically thought to be a good structure in an earthquake. The preferred structural upgrade for earthquake proofing is shown on the plans. He noted difficulty in obtaining insurance for the house as many insurance companies felt because of the open area underneath the house,it was moresusceptible to fire damage than.a typical house. By enclosing this area,it appears more favorablein the eyes of the insurance companies. He further discussedthe structural upgrade which would extend the longevity,of the entire house up to an additional 50-75 years. Additionally,much of the sound coming off the freeway is rolling up underneath the house and coming up under the floor. The upgrade will reduce the noise levels. He questioned condition#8,noting because there. were so many trees on the lot,fencing them at the dripline would actually prevent any equipment onto the property. He requested some leeway.. CLOSED PUBLIC TESTIMONY Discussion ensued regarding suggested changes,to the wording ofthe variance . . findings;#1,last sentence would be as follows: The floor area will be within the allowable limits while the development area will exceed the grandfathered 2,015 square feet by 917 square feet;and#3, deleting "the proposed improvements will not be visible. to neighbors and the house will notappearany larger than it is at present.'' Changes to the conditions of approval were as follows: #5,changing the first line to read "paint color shall match the existing structure and approved by staff...";#8,wording to be provided by the assistant engineer to providelroom.for the equipment to access property;#9, changing "close to" to "over"; delete#10 as it is a duplication of#8; add an additional condition noting if the remodel requires 21/2 or more of exterior walls to be - replaced,the plan shall be returned to the Planning Commission for updating to present codes. Discussion ensued_regarding adding an additional condition to comply with the Master Pathway Plan requiring a pathway easement for 10,feet.(no-development) along the freeway portion(northerly property line)of property.., Les Earnest,.Pathway Chair,noted a change in the original recommendation for a - pathway. The committee originally,had walled down thedriveway onto the north side of the property and felt a pathway could be built. They had not continued around the edge. After returning to the site,they continued down the slope to discover the steepness of the slope not previously walked The original recommendation was not complete. Commissioners Doran and Finn were not in favor of a pathway easement requirement. Commissioner Gottlieb suggested a pathway.,easement be granted over the existing 10 foot utilities easement There was a 4/3 consensus agreement. The.new condition will appear under "Engineering". • Planning Commission Minutes DRAFT May 10, 1995 Page 6 MOTION SECONDED AND ASSED: Motion by Commissioner Finn andseconded by Commissioner Gottlieb to app ove the site development permit and variance to exceed . the maximum development a lea for an addition with the amendments and additions to the variance findings and conditions of approval as previously noted with the change of wording to the pathway requirement as noted prior. AYES: Chairman Schreiner,Commissioners Cheng,Stutz,McMahon,Gottlieb, - Finn&Doran - NOES: None. This item will be reviewed by the City Council for approval prior to the 21 day appeal period. Brief break at 8:5 p.m. 4.4 LANDS OF LIN Y,27591 Purissima Road(199-94-TM-IS-ND-GD); A re west for a tentive map and mitigated negative declaration for a prddposed three 1 t subdivision of 3.928 acres (APN 175-43-034). Negative Declar tion comme s will be accepted until May.31, 1995 at 5:00 p.m. This item was discuss d in two par s; (1)Negative Declaration, (2)Tentative Map. Ms. Koff had proI this the Commission with a supplemental packet of information. It . was provided at this time so the Commission would have backup documentation for some of the issues that may be brought up this evening. A conceptual house floor plan for lot 3 was provided along with a map dated May 10th with changes to the leach fields. The leachfield designs ieflect`the final review by the County Environmental Health Services Department. — - The environmental checklist frm was discussed:III:Water, c) and the letter from the ___ Santa Clara Vall6y Water Dis 'ct and their study of the_creek._Ms.Kolf noted one change from 1962-1963 to pres nt may have to do with the construction of the freeway at which time the State also intalled a pipe further down stream. The Deer Creek drainage basin as discussed. Ms. Kolffelt that the water shed feeding into this area was approximately 84 acres.-S e had just received a flood control inventory study from the Santa Clara Valley Water istrict. The study states that Deer Creek has a drainage area of 1.6 squarer miles. SC D has not made any recommended changes for this application. Usually they look at the entire water shed that feeds into the creek. They do take into consideration pre ent and possible new development. Commissioner Doran noted der the negative declaration,the report states that environmental health departm nt has final say regarding the leach fields. However in William Cotton's report it states that there may be some percolation testing that may need to be done 1 s well as son pumping up hill. She asked if the Health Department takes this recommendation into consideration or does Town engineering look at this Planning Commission Minutes DRAFT May 10, 1995 Page 7 - and make the determination. Ms''Kolf noted[that this was a recommendation from the Town geologist earlier in the review process The County did.take the recommendation and required:wet weather percolation.tests. The final.field alignments that they are reviewing reflect the results of the percolation tests..The final letter which is in the packet is the final approval letter from the County which includes some restrictions for the size ofthe houses and the number of bathrooms.. Commissioner Doran asked if there was anything they could review indicating how many water closets oi drainage would be emptying into this except by labeling it'bedrooms"? Ms.,Kolf,commented that this is something that the County looks at in reviewing it for the Town. They look at the number of bedrooms and the square footage of the structure.. The Town requires, new houses and applications for site development to be reviewed by the County.for approval prior to hearing the project at Planning Commission level. She also noted that the creek alteration permit is generally for the construction of the bridge that will take place in the creek. OPENED PUBLIC HEARING . Shannon Paboojian,12280 Saratoga-Sunnyvale Road,Saratoga,applicant,discussed the negative declaration,environmental health services as it related to:the leach fields,the placement of homes, and the reasoning for the house on lot 3 to be on the west side rather than the east side of the creek. Placing the house on the east side would create a house below leach fields which,is not desired. He further discussed the name of the street(Brubaker Lane versus Samuel Lane);the leach fields as approved by Environmental Health Services;and the restrictions placed on each house (lot 1,six bedrooms;lot 2,four bedrooms;and lot 3,four bedrooms. He commented on the trees which may :be impacted and some that maybe removed which.indude the trees located in the public roadway: two oak trees of 26.on the property due to upgrading of the bridge per the Fire District; and four Canary.Island.Date Palms of 11 along the. Purissima frontage. Impact on trees located in the primary leach field included one coast live oak on Lot 2 (improperly labeled on the tentative map). Impact on trees located in the secondary leach field included ten trees consisting of four deodar_cedar,_ _ __ four coast live oak,one Arizona,cypress, and one valley oak. The new map indicated that the cut and fill are now balanced. He indicated that the sewer line was on top of the hill,farther away than Canario Way and no way to connect. He further discussed. the flood control process with Santa Clara Valley Water District. He noted a concern of the Town as to where the water goes and what is the constriction down stream. The constriction down stream turned out to be an eight foot diameter pipe that runs under Purissima Road to theswale on the other side. He reviewed creek levels very carefully during the heavy raining season. It was noted that there was not way to connect the project to a sewer system. Mr. Paboojian indicated an arborist report from Barrie Coate which he will submit at a later date. The mechanics of the leach field on the east side of the bridge being 20 feet higher than on the west side was explained. . Planning Commission Minute DRAFT May 10, 1995 • Page 8 David Pilling; 12849Canario ay,discussed drainage from above the Morrison's and his property;problems with th water under his house;the mixing of storm run-off water and leach field`water;th creek being contaminated with bacteria;effluents going across the creek;additional de elopment and how to separate all'therun-off from the storm"drains an-the natural leach fields which are occurring from the homes including his home; and tipossible legal action because of the rur-off from his property onto new development,asking if he had legal protection. Cooper and Clark from Palo Alto soils testing.engineershad cone out to the site explaining how all the water soaks into the ground up above the mo tain range over them and goes underground and re- appears in the areas designate on his overhead transparency provided by Mr. Pilling. - Chairman Schreir er,hearing . Pilling's concerns,felt some of the "no"marks under 'Water"needed to be lookedat ore closely and perhaps moved to"maybe". Mr: , Pilling commented on either a tate or Federal law which states any property owner cannot block the natural run-off of a course of water coming off a basin(or whatever): It was Cooper and Clark's opinion.that this has always been the natural run-off for the whole range up and in back of them. Ms.Kolf will provide-Mr. Pilling with a copy of a letter submitted from the applicant's civil engineer addressing this particular topic. Jerry Anderson, 12829 Canario ay,was concerned with?drainage with three new homes being coril trusted. Paul Swanson, 175-43-11,discu sed drainage concerns including the massive amounts of water coming eff the freewai through the maintenance yard;the flooding in 1964; and three times in the past year the creek reaching the-top of bank: Mr. Paboojian discussed the jo of public agencies including Fish&Game and Environmental Heath Services. Tests were done during the 150 year flood and the need to trust the agencies' approval. The creek flow was still three feet left off of bank during the heavy storms l It was noted that taff will mak the necessary changes to the negative declaration, environmental checklist form,bringing back the changes Ito the Planning Commission. Other concerns were noise and lanimal life. Staff will draft responses in a similar format used forthe Lands of Vidovich Jean Struthers,E vironmental esign Committee,discussed the checklist,under • "Water"s p ecifical V.b) and 1 b). Other concerns included III. c),IV.-c),VI: All should.be changed from no t "maybe". She asked if there was'any-cultural impact? She further discussed septic fie ds and careful installation. She wondered if there was better ways to trench.. She was also concerned with the quality of the creek water. t Commissioner C eng noted many problems with drainage even after final approval on many subdivisions. • CLOSED PUBLIC TESTIMONY • Planning Commission Minutes DRAFT May 10, 1995 Page 9 Discussion ensued regarding map issues. 'It was not known if the map was created by an aerial survey or a land survey. Staff will investigateand report back to the -Commission. Commissioner Gottlieb noted in William Cotton's report-'he listedthe property at 3.7 acres and in another report listed the property at 3.9 acres. She would like a clarification regarding storm drains over drainage swales which will flow into Deer Creek although the discussion this evening has been on sheet flow. It does not appear to be any areas over 30% slope:to be placed into a conservation easement. OPENED PUBLIC HEARING Mr. Paboojian,applicant,noted that the water spoken off as being taken down to Deer Creek is the driveway water. The driveway on lot 2 isan existing driveway. Pathways were discussed noting the Type IIB pathwaylalong the frontage was acceptable as it already exists. The north property line pathway was discussed noting Pathway Committee requests on 7/13/94 for a 10 footieasement,on 4/1/95 a request for a 20 foot easement,and on 4/13/95 a request for a 30 foot easement. The existing grade as shown is a 15%slope. He would like to keep the pathway to a 10 foot easement since he did make the offer which requires.a$15,000 bridge to cross the creek. Now heisbeing asked for a trail easement along the easterly property line. This would cross the swale at the top of lot 1. He understandsthereason,however giving.trails on three sides of his property and with a step-on contour house proposed,the trail will be seven feet higher than the house,looking right into their windows. There is a privacy issue on lot 1. He further discussed the dedication of frontage per item 17 on page 10 of the staff report. He felt a 30 foot half street right-of-way has already been dedicated to the Town so no further dedication shouldbe required._, He was aware of the Environmental Design Committee's concern with the two oaks to the north of the bridge which he does not believe are over a 20 inch diameter. All tees impactedare shown on the map.. He noted the Committee's concern with the protection of the cut slope which is handled under condition of approval#24. He_understood the concern with noise,providing the. Town with a copy of the sound survey. He further discussed the neighbor's concerns and the legal easement on parcel 3. He further discussed a document dated.1962 delivered to Town staff by Mr. Swanson, a document between Otto and Lester Brubaker granting to Shecter (now Lindy)from Brubaker (now Swanson) an easement over the driveway to the proposed Lot 2. This document isnot recorded on his title report and. was not disclosed at the time of purchase. That document set up a.20 X 120 foot easement at the request of the Town of Los Altos Hills for the purpose "to provide either the Town or future owners with suitable bargaining power." Not a very good reason for an easement. He does not need to eliminate this easement any longer as the slope density calculations still work without eliminating the easement. Something for,the staff to investigate regarding the letter is that now Mr. Swanson cannot subdivide without losing his access to the bridge. Mr. Paboojian felt he was being penalized- because he is the first one developing. Staff will discuss this with the City Attorney. He asked for a deferred agreement in the case that Mr. Swanson's property develops in Planning Commission Minutes DRAFT May 10, 1995 Page 10 • the future,he will be reimbursed for the expense of the bridge. He further discussed staff's concerns vrith lot 3 loong overly..constrained and requesting to see a house plan with hardscape,driveways,et .which he provided to the Commission. He had also discussed creati$. CC&R's fo this property which not only covers the conservation easement and restrict the size f:lot 3 to 4,500 square feet of floor area.rather than the allowable 6,441 square feet. Ms. Kolf will provide a copy o the noise study to the,Planning Commission. CommissionerDoran asked st ff,since the design of the house was'predicated on the bridge,was there a possibility of changing the location of the bridge? Ms. Kolf noted several yearsag4 the same sor of application went through the Planning Commission which included an extensive s dy.. Due to the proposed location not being as safe for sight distance aryd for where i would outset onto Purissima Road,the application was denied. Impact to the trees w s also reviewed. She also noted that the City Attorney has reviewed thedocuments rovided by Mr. Swanson and she agreed that a reimbursement agreement for the construction for the bridge would probably be appropriate for this project w 'ch is provided for under the Map'Act. The Commission would determine the length o the agreement(5-10 years).; •- , Mr. Pilling, 129 Canario W y,noted that when he heard that the property next to his would be develo ed,he was hoping it would be in keeping with the neighborhood. He does not feel the proposed development is in keeping with the neighborhood,_causing a crowding effect. The overall e fect should be reviewed. . . Les Earnest,Pathway Commit ee Chair,discussed the proposed pathway on the west edge of the property. The slo.e coming up from the creek in an uphill:direction is not 15% slope but 25/0 slope. The Pathways Committee has been tightening their standards on pathway slop because of i oticed erosion after storms (steep pathways wash out). -- This is why they requested a ider.easement in-the segment that is steeply uphill so _ _______________that switch backs could be pla ed there. The Pathway Committee recommendsa 30 foot easement for the portion that i. steeply uphill. It was noted that a 20 foot easement with a 15%slope is also workable. • Discussion ensued regarding e name of the street;Samuel Lane versus:Brubaker Lane. Mr. Swanson cothmented that the Brubaker's were the owners in 1897. Lester"-Brubaker was born on the jroperty and s. Brubaker is still alive Lester Brubaker was responsible for planting most o f the trees on Mr. Swanson's.property except for the older oaks. CLOSED PUBLIC TESTIMO Commissioner Stutz had a con em with#36 regarding street trees being planted along Samuel Lane. She felt this wa excessive. She felt the trees should be removed from the conditionsuggesting bringing this back to the .Site Development Committee.. • Planning Commission Minutes . DRAFT May 10, 1995 Page 11 Commissioner Gottlieb suggested using one driveway accessing all three lots which would reduce the amount of pavement. Mr. orto noted a few issues with shared driveways;also noting that the driveways are carrying drainage. If you try to group the three together'you will be required to go to 60 feet on a public street with turnaround, etc. Ms.Kolf noted that the location of the leach field on lot 1 should be below the house. . MOTION SECONDED AND WITHDRAWN: Motion by Commissioner Doran and seconded by Commissioner Finn to continue the Lands of Lindy-to June 14, 1995. The motion was withdrawn by the maker with concurrence of the second., Discussion ensued regarding the Lands of Vidovich schedule and the possible need for an additional meeting date. MOTION SECONDED AND PASSED BY CONSENSUS: Motion by Commissioner Doran,seconded by Commissioner McMahon and passed by consensus to continue the Lands of Lindy to Monday,June 5th at 7:00 p.m. MOTION SECONDED AND PASSED BY CONSENSUS: Motion by Commissioner Doran,seconded by Commissioner McMahon and passed by consensus recommending- the meeting not to go past 12:00. 5. REPORT FROM THE CITY COUNCIL MEETING 5.1 . Planning Commission representative for May 3rd meeting-Chairman Schreiner. Items discussed were as follows: Dr. Hwong's denial upheld by the Council 3/2;the recommendation from the Council regarding tennis court material counting 100% development area;the report from the Planriingm .Comission(reporting only on current - -- __ __issues,if needed); and endorsing the request for support of Measure D. 5.2- Planning Commission representative for May 17th meeting-Commissioner Doran. 6. NEW BUSINESS 6.1 Discussion-scheduling an additional Planning Commission meeting for May 31 or June 1: ' June 4th was added to-the Planning Commission schedule,as noted previously. i G - Planning Commission Minutes DRAFT- May 10, 1995 Page 12 6.2 Discussion of Co cil policy on circular driveways. _ The Council woul like the Pla ' Commission to discuss circular driveways.for g . possible changes. Discussion en ued noting the following icomments: circular -- 1 driveways (two entrances)were discouraged except for safety;driveway cuts should be kept to a minimum;there shoul be a common sense approach to driveway design, looking for a good design; circular driveway ends should not be in setbacks;two accesses within a 100 foot frontage e may be acceptable,anything less would not be allowed;there should be some perimeters if circular driveways were allowed; and a suggestion to count all of the dri eway towards development area rather than a portion . of it. V 6.3 Discussion on pos ible changes in review process for Site Development permits (subcommittee-Cheng,McMahon,Casey and Dauber). Commissioner Cheng reported n the subcommittee mee 'ting discussion regarding streamlining the s4e developmett process. Currently there,are three process.steps; administrative,sit developmen committee,and Planning Commission. They suggested adding o the second rocess (staff with neighborhood notification) of:. projects between;900-1;500 squa a feet with the total area under 6,000 square feet of floor area. Secondary dwelling Is would also be approved at the second level (site. development committee). At st ff discretion,the proposed projects can be advanced to the Planning Commission level. This item will be heard at the Planning Commission with recommendations forwarded to City Council. Commissioner Stutz would prefer not making any changes in proc dures until they have a staff that has been here for at least a year. . The Commission complimented he consultants for their fine work commenting on their professionalism. r:Porto note that the level of expectation of the people coming to the counter at Los Altos Hills w s unlike any place-the-consultants had ever been - -- before. The demands that the reidents put on staff is unlike.:anything he had ever encountered. It is a very labor i tense situation which requires a lot of work from staff standpoint. He fel'90%of the p-ople coming tothe counter were mad walking in the door about the rocess,what th- have togo through and 'about the constraints process, g everyone is putting on the prope ty. Staff's job is to explain to them the codes and ordinances to protect everyone i, town and that what staff is here to do is help _ . everyone get their project throu:h the process. This takes a large amount of time. Everyone wants aI ery high leve of service. Mr. Porto felt the committee was heading in the right directk n with Suza e,Susan and the new Planning Director starting June 1st. In the past they have not ha. the extra Planner or Susan,both providing more information to the Planning Co ''ssion. Chairman Schreiner commented that the Council felt the Planing Comm ssion is notworking on the broader issues (codes, ordinances,General Plan). Giv' g the staff more authorityimay give the Commission more time for other issues on.th agenda. f 1 Planning Commission Minutes DRAFT May 10, 1995 Page 13 7. OLD BUSINESS 7.1 Report from subcommittees. No reports at this time. 8. APPROVAL OF MINUTES 8.1 Approval of the April 26,1995 Minutes. I MOTION SECONDED AND PASSED BY CONSENSUS: Motion by Commissioner Doran and seconded by Commissioner Finn to approve the April 26th minutes with the following changes: page 6.,paragraph 4, "Staff indicated that it was not appropriate to ask the applicant's representative at this time.";and page 12,paragraph 2,deleting"did not feel," 9. REPORT FROM THE SITE DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE MEETINGS 9.1 LANDS OF YUNG, 13880 Campo Vista Lane; A request for a Site Development Permit for a landscape plan(continued from the April 26th meeting). Approved April 26th with conditions. 9.2 LANDS OF LIN, 12380 Priscilla Lane; A request for a Site Development Permit for a tennis court. Approved with conditions April 26, 1995. 9.3 LANDS OF KWONG, 13964 Fremont Pines Lane; A request for a Site Development Permit for a pool,spa and hardscape. Approved with conditions May 2, 1995. 10. ADJOURNMENT — —The-meeting was adjourned by consensus at 11:58 a. m. Respectfully submitted, Lani Lonberger Planning Secretary