Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout8.1 Minutes of a Regular Meeting DRAFT Town of Los Altos Hills PLANNING COMMISSION Wednesday,June 28, 1995,7:00 p.m. Council Chambers,26379 Fremont Road cc: Cassettes#14-95 (3) 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 Schreiner,Commissioners Cheng,Doran,Gottlieb,McMahon, Finn&Stutz Staff: Curtis Williams,Planning Director;Sheryl Kolf,Assistant Engineer; Suzanne Davis,Planner;Lani Lonberger,Planning Secretary 2. PRESENTATIONS FROM THE FLOOR None. 3. CONSENT CALENDAR None. 4. PUBLIC HEARINGS 4.1 LANDS OF LOHR,24025 Oak Knoll Circle (39-95-ZP-SD-GD); A request for a Site Development Permit for a pool (continued from June 5, 1995). At the request of the applicant,this item will be continued to an undetermined date and re- noticed. 4.2 LANDS OF GOLDBERG, 12012 Emerald Hill Lane (56-95-ZP-SD-GD); A request for a Site Development Permit for a new residence and pool (continued from. June 14, 1995). Mrs. Davis introduced this item. The landscape plan has been provided to the Commission along with a memo from the Pathways Committee regarding a revised pathway request(IIB path in the easement along Stonebrook Drive) which would need to be added to the conditions of approval. Since condition#12 could be deleted if the project was approved as proposed because the amount of material that would need to Planning Commission Minutes DRAFT June 28, 1995 Page 2 come onto the site would be 1 ss than 1,000 c.y.,the newpathway condition could be #12 with suggested wording'type IIB path shall be constructed within the existing pathway easement along Stoebrook Drive,and shall.connect to the existing path at 12051 Stonebrook Drive. The work shall be done to the Satisfaction of the Engineering Department,pr'or to final ins ection." Commissioners inn and Mclyfahon reported they had listened to the tapes of the June 14th meeting an had read th minutes. The placement of story poles ere not repositioned from the previous hearing even though the houe� has been raised three feet. Staff indicted that the story pole handout will be revised and will inclue a graphic display. OPENED PUBLIC HEARING Art Goldberg, 1 Bay Tree Lane,Los Altos,applicant. Since the last meeting,he had met with staff for an'extensive discussion of what had occurred at the hearing as well as the recommendations in terms of hanges to the property. The items discussed and changed included: raising the evel of the house and the foundation approximately three feet;reduce and/or eli nate the retaining walls in front of the house;if structurally sound,eliminate a gravity retaining walls behind the patio and pool area and extend the grade to the ri id retaining wall around the patio and pool;as required, . add steps in rea of house to i crease elevation differential between the new level of the house and the patio; showed s epped foundation under the garage,bedroom wing of the house;provided a new gr ding plan to reflect the reduced level of cut and fill required;included a landscap' g plan in the submittal package;the floor plan,the roof plan, and the layout will remain unchanged with the exception of the displacement of the entire plan to raise the levsll three feet;and showed the recommended three foot wide path to the front door (the stepping stones will be replaced by a three foot wide foot path per the recommendation of staff). Staff also recommended that they show the m maxi um elevation from adjacent grade to highest point which has been added to the plans. Also added to the plan vas the location of the pool equipment as indicated on the landscaping plan. The loc tion will be under a portion of the upper patio so it will not add substantially either to the square footage required and will be completely shielded and housed in a way hat will not be obtrusive. Mr. Goldberg no ed that at the previous meeting,some incorrect statements were made as to how obtrusive the house ould be on the property and how visible the property would be from various sites in the Town. He provided photographs of the only areas where the property would be isible (Emerald Hill at the Sheen driveway;Emerald Hill at Shenn/Yu property line;St ebrook near turn to the west;Stonebrook near the bottom of the property;Magd lens near Blandor;Oak Knoll;south rim of the quarry; and near the corner of Magdalna and Blandor.. He provided photos with the proposed house overlaid noting that almost the entire ridge line of the house is below the ridge of Planning Commission Minutes DRAFT June 28, 1995 Page 3 the hill. He also commented on the statement made regarding how obtrusive the patios and pool areas would be commenting with any reasonable landscaping,they will not be able to see them(as shown on an overhead slide). Another item of concern discussed at the previous meeting was the direction of the pool and whether or not it should be conforming with the slope of the land or whether is should conform to the contours and cross the contour of the land. He provided a letter from the soils engineer at Terrasearch recommending the pool be positioned as it is shown on the plan(shallow end uphill and deep end downhill). CLOSED PUBLIC TESTIMONY Glenn Cahoon, 1585 The Alameda,San Jose,project architect,in answer to questions, commented on the roof line,stair-stepping the house,eliminating some retaining walls; number of retaining walls going down the hill (hugging the hill as they go down the hill),and easy accessibilityobtaining fill from the area. Chairman Schreiner noted concern with the previous request for visually stepping the roof line down and the visual effect of the horizontal line across. It'seemed that they have stepped the left side down,however the rest of the house appears to be on one level. Mr. Cahoon commented that the previous design was cut into the hill at a greater depth. So when they raised the house,it left natural grade up against the house. So they have stepped the foundation and stepped the pony walls.,`The floors have remained the same although he has lowered the garage slab to come down closer to the natural grade. When Chairman Schreiner asked about the stepping of the roof line,Mr. Goldberg pointed out that the roof steps from the front to back and the roof line was modified so that it could be lowered as suggested at the informal site analysis meeting. Commissioner Finn asked how much have they articulated the roof line? Mr.Cahoon displayed elevations and explained variations in roof: dormer,different roof lines,and modulated roof elements. Commissioner Finn asked how they were able to eliminate the retaining walls. Mr. Cahoon responded,by lifting the house up,they reduced cut and lessened the need for high walls. The retaining wall below the pool area will be 6 feet at the highest point(varies in height). The walls will be well screened with landscaping and the balustrade above the wall will be open. Commissioner Doran,discounting the geotechnical consultant's recommendation,asked if they recalculated the grading volumes for the possibility of the pool in the opposite direction and/or elimination of the lawn area and steps? Mr. Cahoon responded that they have not recalculated the amount of grading if they turned the pool in a different direction. Originally,the first design showed the pool running parallel with the • contours. He discussed the recommendations from the.geotechnical consultant noting that the pool will be sitting on bedrock in the proposed location which is better structurally. Mr. Goldberg noted that originally there was a much more rectangular area behind the house, aliened with the house. As a consequence,there was a retaining wall which ran from the east side of the house all the way to the west side of the house. Planning Commission Minute DRAFT June 28, 1995 Page 4 It was the opinion of the Corn 'ssioners at the site analysis meeting that this would be too obtrusive anc that they sh uld try to break that up and try to get the pool onto a lower level. In order to accom lish this,they broke up the patio and-moved._the-pool to a lower level,with a lower ret ining wall on that lower section: This was one of the things he was not willing to re esign as he felt it would not be acceptable to the Commission, and would mak it more obtrusive on the hill and this would not be consistent with t she intent of th Commission. Commissioner Cheng asked h w high was the retaining wall around the pool side? Mr. Goldberg responIded that the r taining walls vary in height since they start at grade. Where they are furthest out, th maximum height would be 6 feet. The walls should disappear with landscaping. He did not feel the area would be visible. Mr. Cahoon further discussed the height of the house. Discussion ensued addressing the house,then the landscaping and patio/lawn area. Commissioner McMahon discussed her notes from the January 27th informal site analysis meeting with the applicants and their architect. Some items covered were : stepping the roof heights;the house roof and floor must step down;view of site from Stonebrook and 1)4agdalena Av-nue; and some living area to be.level for mother of Mrs. Goldberg. Neither Schreiner, cMahon or Stutz remembered any discussion regarding the landscaping,pool or lawn. Chairman Schreiner felt the applicant,has done much to address concerns however,su gested more discussing. Commissioner McMahon noted articulation good;breaks up masses and bulk,and is architecturally interesting. However, she did not feel the house and roof were stepped down in response to the discus ion at the January meeting. Commissioner Doran was even more in favor of the house since they have raised the house and reduced the retainin walls. She felt the applicant had addressed the needs of the site.' It is a difficult lot to design on and she was still in favor of the house. Commissioner Cheng felt they hould have discussed the notes of January 27th at the previous meeting because their discussion and recommendations were based on that meeting. She was happy with . e many changes and had no problem with the new design. Commissioner Finn felt an issue for a house on a visible lot or ridge line was articulation and the architectur.1 style. The architectural style does not particularly blend into the hillside,howeve the articulation is very good. He felt the Goldbergs have worked very!hard to wor•with the Town and he was in favor of the house. Commissioner Gottlieb agreed ith Commissioner McMahon regarding the January meeting and therO.was still a problem with the right side of the house which does not meet.the intent of the codes: She read Sec. 10-2.702, siting,from the Municipal Code. ' Planning Commission Minutes DRAFT June 28, 1995 Page 5 She felt this house would dominate the natural landscape. She further read from page 1056, (c)"disturbance to the site". Commissioner Stutz reiterated her comments from the previous meeting regarding the dormer windows.on the garage. If it was only an architectural feature,it should be removed it as it gives the appearance of a second story - over the garage. Chairman Schreiner was glad that they had some of the previous discussions in written form as she was concerned that they had given the applicant very ambiguous instructions and that they were struggling to'determine exactly what was being asked. She was happy that so much has been mitigated. However,the house will be quite visible from the quarry and will appear quite massive. Discussion regarding the landscaping ensued with the understanding that the landscape plan that was given to them this evening is simply a conceptual plan and not under review this evening. Mr.Williams provided information regarding stepping down a house . He felt the basic intent of the ordinances was (1) reduce grading; (2)reduce the visibility and the bulk of the house. He reviewed this project looking at what more could be done in terms of stepping the house. For instance,the large area on the right side is approximately 40 feet by 80 feet(3,200 square feet of area with the floors close to the same level). If you took the upper half of that and moved it up a foot and took the lower half and move it down a foot to get a 24 inch drop between those two areas,this would more directly meet the intent and language of the codes. However,the effect this has on the grading on this project is very minimal (100-125 c.y.). 'The real impact regarding this project from a grading standpoint involved the entry way,the driveway (which has been reduced substantially), and the back yard withthe amount of fill proposed. He did not feel there was much else the applicant could do with the entry way without making the garage come up more,making it a more visible structure..It would be nice if the fill was reduced in the backyard area so the site would be more balanced and there would not be a need for import. He felt it was important to address the back yard area. A condition had been added to the staff report to help soften some of the features of the back yard in terms of the walls and the patio areas,trying not to use white stucco on those features to make them more reflective but touse more rock and darker tones. Some comments regarding the Peters' property view of the roof line,bulk and mass, and the foundation were made. Commissioner Stutz was reluctant to discuss the landscape plan at this time as it should be done once the house is framed.. She does not feel that the pool,lawn or any decking were a part of the landscaping. This application includes a pool so they should vote on the location of the pool. Commissioner Gottlieb was in favor of natural decking. She was not in favor of the amount of fill-for landscaping as they must preserve the natural land. In discussing the rear yard design, Commissioner Finn commented that most people buying in Los Altos Hills assume they can have a swimming pool. He noted that there is a lot of fill,however the question is Planning Commission Minut s DRAFT June 28, 1995 Page 6 how necessary is it, and does the pool need to run the way it is shown? He felt a swimming pool would work people should have an outdoor area to enjoy. This site is three acres! Commissioner eng noted at the last meeting,the applicant was asked to;.. change the rear yard and ho the pool would be situated. She felt they should reduce the grading. Commissioner oran noted that previously they had discussed that the rear yard be minimized in th cut and fill. She felt they could fit in a lawn,a pool and a rear area with cut and fill but reduce some of the amount. Chairman.Schr iner asked th applicant if it was possible for them,if the house is approved,to reflesign the ba k yard? Mr. Goldberg responded if they do not approve the back yard area he would ppeal the decision to the City Council. He felt that they have taken extensive efforts t try to conform to both the intent and the ordinance. They had started with a pool rea that was higher up,closer to the house. The current design is less desirable becau e there are more steps to reach it. When you are building a house that is t ds expensive you do not want to live inside;you want to be able to have some area outside to live on. 's design is both conforming to the style of architecture and with reasonable landsca•ing will not present obtrusive site development. There are no wildflowers on the site an they are not being disturbed. The amount of grading proposed is consistent with dr requirements of the Torn in terms of the angle and conformance with the existing landscape. There are always other ways to do anything. It is a question off cost and e. At this point he felt that they have done a reasonable job in trying to Conform and uild something that will be an attribute to the Town. Chairman Schre er noted th t some of the remarks made at the previous meeting and at this meeting indicate most f the Commissioners are in agreement regarding the back yard not conforming to the in ent of the philosophy of this Town. She suggested taking the application in two section ;first looking at the conditions of approval for the house, then taking a vote just on the ouse design as it has been presented this evening. Commissioner Gottlieb sugge ted the rear yard plan be returned tothe Planning Commission. I,.Williams n ted a problem with the suggestion. They should only remove the swimming pool c ndition(#6). Staff can put in the conditions of approval that the rear yard area is not a proved and that plans for that area would need to return to the Commission unless the specify that grading would be reduced by whatever the export amount is to balance.ta cut and fill. If the Commission is saying that they are not approving the back yard area,all will have to come back. Condition#12 can be deleted if the plan is approve as proposed. A new#12 rould be added which would be the new pathway requirem nt as previously stated by Mrs. Davis (A Type IIB path shall be constructed within th existing pathway easement along Stonebrook Drive,and shall connect to the existing p that 12051 Stonebrook Drive. The work shall be done to • the satisfaction othe Engine ing Department,prior to final inspection.) Commissioner S utz felt the pthway should be designed to conform more or less to the two lots above it on Stonebroo Road. The easement now reads "across the bottom property line". This might not be the best place for it. Mrs. Davis suggested amending • Planning Commission Minutes DRAFT June 28, 1995 Page 7 the condition to say that if it becomes necessary to construct a portion of the pathway outside the existing easement then an additional easement will need to be dedicated. Ms. Kolf commented that they couldask for:an additional easement and then keep this other easement if they felt it was an alignment they might want at future date or they could ask for an additional easement and then abandon the existing easement. RE-OPENED PUBLIC HEARING Torn Griffiths,Pathway Committee,discussed the existing easement on the adjoining properties runs somewhere between 14-20 meters from the road due to the slope being very steep at the road level. He suggested conforming with the rest of the pathways in the area by moving the pathway easement 14-20 meters (could be as much as 60 feet up the hill from Stonebrook Drive): He was asking for the pathway easement to be moved up theslope to meet the existing path coming off the other properties. Ms: Kolf commented that the property line appears to be 30 feet from the road already. They can state that a 10 foot wide pathway easement will be dedicated to connect the two existing pathways. They can have the applicant stake the property line location,having the Pathway Committee also agree with the location of where the pathway will be installed and then dedicate the easement around that pathway. This would be determined to the satisfaction of the Pathway Committee and the City Engineer. It was noted that condition#6 should also be deleted as it pertains to the rear yard walls;#17, remove the word "pool". There was a consensus vote not to have the,landscape plan for the whole project return to the Planning Commission. RE-CLOSED PUBLIC TESTIMONY MOTION SECONDED AND PASSED: Motion by Commissioner Cheng and seconded by Commissioner Doran to approve the site development permit for the new house design only with the changes and amendments to the conditions of approval as stated. AYES: . Chairman Schreiner,Commissioners Finn,Cheng&Doran NOES: Commissioners Gottlieb,Stutz &McMahon (Chairman Schreiner noted serious reservations regarding some of the direction given to the applicant not followed. However,she would go with the recommendation given by staff noting that even if those particular conditions were met,it would not make that much difference.) This itemwill appear on the City Council consent calendar July 19th. Further discussion ensued regarding the rear yard area. There was a consensus for a re- design of the rear yard area. Commissioner McMahon indicated she would not delay the project in any way,for the rear yard. It was noted that the house plans could be plan checked although it would be difficult to have a grading plan approved for a house that Planning Commission Minutes DRAFT June 28, 1995 Page 8 does not connect to the rear ya d grading. Mr.Williams suggested one of two motions assuming the Co ission is n t in favor of what is being proposed in the rear yard currently. One lotion would a to direct the applicant to redesign the rear yard expressing any specific cone the Commission would like them to address (i.e. quantity of grading,pool locati6n). The second motion would be to actually specify that the rear yard could be app oved by staff if they reduced the cubic yardage to a specific amount,possibly the ount of cut or balance th fill with the cut. This would allow the applicant to come ba , to staff when they do their house plans,showing staff the grading plan that meets th I request and has reduced the fill to an extent that they could approve the whole proje i at one time. However,the Commission would not have the opportunity to see the final design so those conditions that were removed would need to be added back ' to the motion. Mr. Cahoon noted that most of a fill is in the back yard and most of the cut is up where the house is. If they red ce the amount of fill in the rear yard to balance the site, this will reduce tlle amount tha they will use to screen the retaining wall that holds the pool and the upper patio,hay' g a little more exposure on the wall. Another option would be to then continue to st it-step those patios down which makes the house bigger on that side. They can r duce the amount of fill in Ithe back area,bring everything down Ior leave it w re it is,ending up with a higher exposure. Commissioner McMahon disco sed balancing the cut and fill noting that if the house itself is virtually fiat inside,ma 'ng no consideration for the 33% slope, at least the outside should be on the terrai . She felt staff could handle this. Chairman Schreiner would prefer to see some of the back area eliminated as some of it does not belong on this slope. She would like to ke p the integrity of the hillside. Commissioner Finn noted that if they balance the t and fill,they are forcing the applicant to work with staff to dramaticaly'minimize tie impact that the pool and back yard will have on the property and it will also drama cally reduce the impact of any views off-site. He felt if they gave direction in a motion o approve the pool/rear yard by balancing the cut and fill and allow staff to work with the applicants,they would have accomplished minimizing the impact on the llside and the views from off-site. MOTION SECONDED AND P A SED: Motion by Commissioner McMahon and seconded by Commissioner Ch-ng to approve the site development permit for the pool with the following requirement cut will equal fill and the resolution will be approved at staff level;the eight of any r-taming wall is not to exceed 5 feet in height;and conditions#6 and 8 are includ-d in the conditions of approval. AYES: Commissioners Fi ,McMahon,Doran,Cheng NOES: ' , Chairman Schrein-r,Commissioners Gottlieb &Stutz This item will appear on the Cit Council consent calendar July 19th. - f 1 ' Planning Commission Minutes DRAFT June 28, 1995 Page 9 4.3 CERTIFICATE OF CORRECTION,TRACT NO. 1286 (87-95-FM Amend) LANDS OF CHOPRA, 14341 Miranda Way, LANDS OF COLMAN, 14440 Manuella Road, LANDS OF DOWNEY, 14330 De Belli Road, LANDS OF GARRETTSON, 14495 Miranda Road, LANDS OF GOLDSOBEL, 14415 Miranda Court,. LANDS OF STOECKER, 14355 Miranda Way,and LANDS OF YOUNG, 14470 Manuella Road; A request to change a Final Map to revise the building setbacks to meet current Town standards. Staff had nothing further to add to the staff ;report. Chairman Schreiner noted several other lots with the same type of restrictions which are not a part of the application. What happens to them? Ms. Kolf responded that this application is only being brought. forward by the applicants as listed. Other applicants will be required to go through the same process if they wanted the building setback lines recorded with the Final Map. At the time of this map approval sanitary sewer service was not available to the residents in this area thusthe requirement for the setbacks. Since that time,sanitary sewer service has been added with sewer mains located in Manuella Road,Esperanza Drive and a portion of Miranda Road. Ms. Kolf confirmed that a study of the area was not done.The original setback lines were for the septic fields. The intent was not for the planning of the residence for a staggering effect. All properties will still be held to all the zoning and site development codes as everyone else in Town. It was noted that most of the Commissioner's were familiar with the area and did not revisit the sites. OPENED PUBLIC HEARING i John Diffenderfer,.227C Ada Avenue,Mt. View,representing Maurice Camargo, architects,noted that they were contacted by one of the seven:applicants.to represent them. They,in turn,sent 21 letters to all involved property owners;seven elected to participate. William Downey, 14330 De Bell Road, applicant,felt this was an opportunity to bring things into conformity. Andy Colman, 14440 Manuella Road,applicant,noted that the participation was so everyone could share in the cost so in the future there would be one less encumbrance to the owners to build or expand. Dorothy Young, 14470 Manuella Road,applicant, discussed receiving permission from. the Town to connect to sewer,establishing a 50 foot setback. However,this was never formally recorded. Planning Commission Minut s ' DRAFT June 28, 1995 Page 10 CLOSED PUBLIC HEARING Chairman Schreiner comment d on the open space quality in the area with smaller homes set back considerably f om the front. She had no problem with the approval although she hoped that whe individual homes come in,they take a look at the benefit of staggering th homes mu like on La Paloma to retain the open,natural quality in this area. MOTION SECO DED AND PASSED: Motion by Commissioner Doran and seconded by Commissioner Stutz to rec mmend approval of the Certificate of Correction,Tract No. 1286 to the City Council. AYES: Chairman Schre er,Commissioners.Cheng,Finn,McMahon,Gottlieb, Stutz &Doran NOES: None This item will appear on the C ty Council agenda.July 19th for public hearing. 4.4 LANDS OF GILMAR ,25980 Quail Lane (54-94-SD-GD); A request for an interpretation of the ap roved driveway material for a previously approved major addition and rem del. Staff had nothing further to ad to the report. Samples of the pavers were provided for review. Mrs. Dafis noted that I they installed the pavers and counted them at 100% development area,it would do ble the size of the driveway. OPENED PUBLIC HEARING William Gilmartin,25980 Qua' Lane, applicant,made it clear to the Commission that he was a typical property owner ads opposed to a contractor or developer. He and his wife have always followed the advi a of their contractors,architects and the information provided by the members of th Town Hall staff. He was before them not because he knowingly decided to use a driveway material that was unacceptable to the latest rules, but because he was informed I ough his architect that a former employee of the-Town had given them a verbal approval last year to use the materials. They thought the verbal approval was official un '1 recently. The driveway building permit marked approved lead them to believe hey had no problem with their selection of materials. So based on a signet document a d an earlier verbal approlal,they purchased the materials and where about to i tall them when Mrs. Da lis, doing a routine visit to the property, saw the material, as ng if they knew it was not an approved material. He clarified that he was not interes ed in breaking or stretching any rules or gaining any special privileges. He wanted t make sure they understood that the mix-up was through no fault o of his own. H noted that the area involved cannot be seen from the street or from aother residence, and the area involved is less than 900 square feet. • Planning Commission Minutes DRAFT June 28, 1995 Page 11 Bill Maston,384 Castro.Street,Mt. View,felt there was possibly two reasons for the mix- up; (1) dealing with a former planner prior to her leaving;and(2)the follow-up drawings (landscape and gate way plans)which specifically identified the product which Mr. Gilmartin purchased (samples provided) and were approved. None of this was intentional. He discussed two issues: the product;and why they were forced to use the product in the first place which was due to policy (the re-orientation of the garage increasing the development area forcing them to use turfstone or grasscrete which counted as 50%). The issue is whether the material purchased qualifies or meets the intent which is to use a product that will break up the surface of asphalt or concrete and will bepermeable to prevent runoff from the site., He felt the material in question was both. In many cases,this product is filled with sand or gravel rather than lawn. Chairman Schreiner noted that originally the site development permit was approved with a grass like material. Mr. Matson agreed noting"or approved equal" so the product was shown on the landscape plan for approval. It was noted that when they brought in the plans,they did not specifically discuss the change in materials nor did they highlight any revisions. The May 11th minutes from the Planning Commission state "grasscrete". CLOSED PUBLIC TESTIMONY Discussion ensued regarding the applicant/architect's responsibility to comply with the approvals;only one plan showed new materials;plans approved for fence,entry pillars,. gates,not paver materials. It was not thought that the applicant_tried to deceive staff, howeverthe approved type of material was changed. The process for approving new materials was discussed. MOTION SECONDED,AMENDED AND PASSED: Motion by Commissioner Gottlieb and seconded to Commissioner McMahon and.amended.to denythe applicant's request,and require the originally approved "turfstone or "grasscrete"pavers (or approved equal) to be installed in the driveway and paving area as shown on the plans approved on May 11, 1994. - AYES: • Chairman Schreiner,Commissioners Stutz,Cheng,McMahon,Gottlieb & Finn NOES: None ABSTAIN: Commissioner.Doran Commissioners Finn and Doran emphasized the need.to be specific in product names and not use generic names. Brief break at 9:40 p.m. Planning Commission Minutes DRAFT June 28, 1995 Page 12 4.5 LANDS OF WISE,2430 Elise Court and LANDS OF VIDOVICH,.Santa Clara County(60-95-LLA); A request for a lot line adjustment(APN 336-26-010&APN 336-41-012). Mr. Williams indicated that a 1 tter from Mr.Vidovich to the Santa Clara County had been provided to the Commis ion. He is proposing to the County to build his house on the 11.7 acre pardel apply for 11uilding site approval and a lot line adjustment concurrently. TF�e County nor ally:routes any permits that are within the Town sphere of influence to thestaff. It was not known the minimum lot size required in the County. The intent as repesented to st ff is' that Mr.Vidovich would like control of the 0.62 acre portion because is itvisible fro his potential house site. Chairman Schreiner asked if there were any rights or restrictions that go with this parcel that would revert to parcel A? Mr.Williams commented t' at the only restrictions staff was aware of was that there was a conditionf approval. o Mr. Wise's variance that the maximum floor and development area would be ca culated based on the topography prior to the grading. He felt that if the land stays win the Town,the restriction will hold. If there is a request for de-annexation of t s parcel,he would assume that any conditions that apply to this parcel now wouldbe conditions of the de-annexation. The lot unit factor and acreage was calculated ba-ed on the original topography. The lot line adjustment would increase il}developmen and floor area for Parcel A and taken away from Parcel B. Under the lawl,it does not atter whythe applicants are requesting the lot line PP � q adjustment. OPENED PUBLIC HEARING Michael Wise,24301 Elise Cou t, applicant,commented that he had been unhappy with the development pf the Quarry property which is right adjacent to his property. He had met with Mr. Vidovich after he received his grading permit and he was complaining to him regarding his dissatisfacti.n. Mr. Vidovich seized the opportunity to purchase the property. Mr. Wise did not ne-d or want the propertyany more. It will be right in the view of Mr. Vido ich's house a d Mr. Vidovich would prefer to control the area so no one will build a tennis court an. house horses in that area. He only saw benefits to the lot line adjustment. Commissi.ner Gottlieb was concerned with the neighbor,Mr. - Walker, and his vew. This co -ideration wasnotedin the original variance conditions of approval and as previously tated by Mr.Williams,if the property stays within the Town, the conditions remains. it is de-annexed,the Council can require a deed restriction to be filed as a part the approval. When asked by Commissioner Stutz about the pink and yellow ribb n tapes,Mr.Wise responded that it was for the County regarding the septic expansion rea. They wanted him to lay out where the existing septic system was (there are tw ;one by the house and one down below) to prove to the County that he hal. at least 300 eet of expansion area. He was able to show 450 feet. This is not the area in review. r.Wise had indicated that he had read the staff report and had no problem with the rding. Planning Commission Minutes DRAFT June 28, 1995 Page 13 Mr. Williams commented that the City Council would not be interested in annexing the property unless they know what is going to be developed on the property. In order to annex a property,they need to do fiscal analysis,environmental analysis,etc. In order to accomplish this,you have to have some. sense of what is happening(access,sewer or septic system,development numbers). Discussion ensued regarding annexation and the Quarry subdivision. Mr.Wise was under the impression that Mr. Vidovich is very interested in getting the entire Quarry property into the Town of Los Altos-Hills. CLOSED PUBLIC TESTIMONY Chairman Schreiner asked if there were any conditions needed for this recommen- dation. .Mr.Williams noted that it was only a recommendation to the City Council. The only conditions what would beapplicable would be making it contingent on annexing or de-annexing. The procedure required by law to formalize the approval (provide a grant deed reflecting the property exchange)was discussed. Commissioner Stutz was concerned as she did not believe that the Town of Los Altos Hills would accept a subdivision with one(1)eight acre lot with'many one (1)acre lots surrounding it. She asked if Mr. Vidovich builds on half of his lot,how are they going to insist that his eight acres are subdivided into at least three lots instead of one? Mr.Williams noted that presently he does not have an eight acre site until he subdivides and gets to that point. Currently he has an 11.7 acre site. The leverage is that the County will defer to the Town's review of the house. Mr. Vidovich has indicated that he wants it reviewed by the Town. Commissioner Stutz discussed past experiences with County approvals. Mr.Williams noted that it really does not make any difference to the process as it relates to the 0.62 acres. It was noted that you could only deny a lot line adjustment based on it not complying with the zoning ordinances. MOTION SECONDED AND PASSED: Motion by Commissioner Gottlieb and seconded by Commissioner Cheng recommending approval of the proposed lot line adjustment to the City Council, contingent on Parcel A being annexed entirely to Los _ Altos Hills or the 0.62 acre portion being d ;annexed to the County. AYES: Chairman Schreiner,Commissioners Doran,Cheng,Finn,Stutz &Gottlieb. NOES: None ABSTAIN: Commissioner McMahon This item will appear on the City Council agenda July 19th for public hearing. 5. REPORT FROM THE CITY COUNCIL MEETING 5.1 Planning Commission Representative for the June 21st meeting-Commissioner Gottlieb reported the following items were discussed: approval of the Planning Commission consent calendar items;;report on policy regarding exterior colors (color board);report on policy regarding tennis/sport courts, driveways and I Planning Commission Minutes 1 DRAFT June 28, 1995 Page 14 parking and developmont area;request for a revision to the pathway slope standard; and the apprval of the Lands of Lindy jthree lot subdivision. 5.2 Planning Commission Representative for the July meeting-Commissioner Cheng. 6. NEW BUSINESS 6.1 City.Council/Planning Commission joint meeting July 13th at 5:00 p.m. The meeting has been canceled and will be rescheduled in the future. 7. OLD BUSINESS 7.1 Report from subcommi tees. Dan Anderson,of the Housing Element Committee is currently working on a reply to the State. 7.2 Discussion-Circular dri eways. A report was presented by the Planning Director. Discussion e ued regarding#1,possibly changing "100 feet of distance" to 70-80 feet. le safety on the pathway system with regards to double access driveways comin: down in a steep area; (#3) suggesting adding "shall retain the natural slope .nd topography" (currently in the ordinances); and#4, suggesting adding the arterial and collector street names. Bill Maston, architect, noted some positive asplects of circular driveway;helps with off-street parking and house design or site features may encourage circular driveways. In discussing dual access,he suggested the review process include the site design, architectural considerations, and engineering concerns,not just traffic safety. The Planning Director noted all comments and concerns. He will incorporate comments Viand will provide a draft policy for review at the next meeting. If all are in agreement, the dr.ft policy will be forwarded.to the City Council. 7.3 Discussion-Color Board. The color board has been adopted by the City Council. 8. APPR• AL •F E 8.1 Approval of the June 14, 1995 minutes. 1 1 MOTION SECONDED AND PSSED BY CONSENSUS: Motion by Commissioner Gottlieb,seconded by Commis ioner McMahon and passed by consensus to approve the June.14th minutes with the ollowing additions/changes: Page 6,added paragraph, "The Commission unanimously .agreed that the rear yard 'area needed to be redesigned. • The applicant expressed a desir for the Commission to vote on the project(approve or deny) even though there appea ed to be a need for a redesign.";page 6,first motion, change Commissioner Stutz vote from 'NOES"to "ABSTAIN"; and page 10, added "at this location" to the first sentence of paragraph two. • J Planning Commission Minutes DRAFT June 28, 1995 Page 15 9. 1 EPORT FROM THE SITE DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE MEETING None. 10. ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned by consensus at 10:45 p.m. Respectfully submitted, f Lani Lonberger Planning Secretary