Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout7.3 s " 7 s Minutes of a Regular Meeting DRAFT Town of Los Altos Hills PLANNING COMMISSION: Wednesday,September 13, 1995, 7:00 p.m. Council Chambers,26379 Fremont Road cc: Cassettes#19-95 (3 ) 1. ROLL CALL AND PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE The Planning Commission meeting was called to order at 7:04 p.m. in the Council Chambers at Town Hall. Present: Chairman McMahon,Commissioners Cheng,Doran,Finn,Gottlieb, Schreiner, &Stutz (arrived 7:10 p.m.) Absent: None Staff: Curtis Williams,Planning Director;Sheryl Proft,Assistant Engineer; Suzanne Davis,Planner;Susan Manca,Planner;Lani Lonberger,Planning Secretary 2. PRESENTATIONS FROM THE FLOOR-None. 3. CONSENT CALENDAR-None. 4. PUBLIC HEARINGS 4.1 LANDS OF LOHR, 12101 Oak Park Court (lot 2) (120-95-ZP-SD-GD); A request for a Site Development Permit for a new residence (continued from August 9, 1995). Staff had nothing further to add to the staff report. Commissioner Schreiner asked how much the shared driveway counted toward the development area. Ms. Manca responded that the shared driveway area is within an access easement which is not included in their net acreage. Therefore,the;development area of the shared driveway is not included in the development area calculations. Commissioner Gottlieb had concerns regarding drainage. OPENED PUBLIC HEARING Steve Lohr,586 Lagunita Drive,Stanford, discussed the drainage concerns noted by Commissioner Gottlieb. He commented on their sensitivity to the Commissioners comments regarding the subdivision not looking like tract houses (stucco exterior). He 0 Planning Commission Minutes DRAFT September 13, 1995 Page 2 ' further discussed the conservation easement,the house design to reduce grading, cut and fill, and being in agreement with the conditions of approval. CLOSED PUBLIC HEARING Commissioner Finn commended the applicant for this design. Commissioner Gottlieb asked if it was necessary to have so much driveway in the 30 foot setback as shown. She would prefer some of it pulled out. Ms. Manca clarified the area within 10 feet of the access easement and the amo int of pavement for the driveway are required for backup and turn around areas. MOTION SECONDED AND PASSED: Motion by Commissioner Doran and seconded by Commissioner Finn to approve the site development permit for a new residence with the recommended conditions of approval. AYES: Chairman McMahon, Commissioners Cheng, Gottlieb,Stutz,Schreiner, Finn &Doran NOES: None This item will be on the City Council consent calendar October 4, 1995. 4.2 LANDS OF MCNEES,24990 La Loma Drive (97-95-ZP-SD-VAR); A request for a Site Deifelopment Peifmit for a major addition/remodel and a detached accessory building, and a variance to allow an encroachment into the side setback. Commissioner Doran stepped down as she is an adjacent neighbor. Staff had nothing further to add to the report. Commissioner Gottlieb had concerns regarding the foundation. Commissioner Schre ner would like to make sure that the City Attorney approves any disclaimer/agreement/restriction. Since these were geotechnical questions,Mrs. Davis felt the applicant could address. OPENED PUBLIC HEARING Sterling McNees, 24990 La Loma Drive, applicant, discussed the geotechnical report noting his disagreement with the l inding. The applicant appeared before the City Council where a compromise wa reached with regard to the basement. This is a remodel of a 35 year old house. he proposed project is within the guidelines of the Town except for the variance req est to enclose a porch which is in the side setback area. He felt the house originally was built to County standards with a required setback of 15 feet. There would be no sigrliificant effect on landscaping or grading. He noted concerns regarding the condition of approval. Although not a problem,he voiced objection to the Town approving louse colors (#8) and he disagreed with#7,lights in skylights. He objected to#11, pathway easements. He has no intention of granting a 10 Planning Commission Minutes DRAFT September 13, 1995 Page 3 foot easement which would come within five feet of his bedroom window (westerly) property line. Of note, the easements reduce his property size by 11.3%. The 20 foot easement along the back property line is a problem. The area is steep which makes walking difficult. Seventy-five percent of the people who border that pathway are opposed to it. This pathway would be very expensive to put in and maintain. Public access on three sides will reduce the value of his property. He did not feel pathway requirements should be a part of an application for remodeling. If felt the pathway should be removed from the pathway map. He noted that the property which backs up to his remodeled in 1993 and were not requested to dedicate or install a path. He wondered why. He asked if the Town would be compensating him for dedication of pathways. Mr. McNees continued with the conditions of approval. #19 requiring a type IIB path along La Loma Drive. He noted there was already a pathway in front of his house. The street was 15 feet wide however when it was'repaved, it was repaved only 13 feet. He mentioned his letter of August 4th. He proposed a native path in-lieu of a JIB path. He also felt the landscaping condition(#4) really applies to a new residence. He noted no problems with drainage or erosion on the back of his field (#16). Jim Norris, 25010 La Loma Drive, agreed with all comments made by Mr. McNees, especially the comments regarding the back pathway. Shelley Doran,24920 La Loma Court,neighbor,understands the need for pathways in Town,however, questions this request. She discussed her 1992 project,faced a request for a 254 foot path,8 feet wide at the rear of her property which actually touches Mr. McNees property which goes nowhere for a cost of$3,000 to install. The Town is asking the applicant for 20 feet of pathway when all of the other pathways along that corridor are 8 feet. She felt there were other ways to access that lower Stonebrook path other then going in between the McNees' house and the property next to him. She also noted neighbors on La Loma who remodeled between 1992 and the present who were never asked to dedicate property at the bottom of that Stonebrook culvert for a pathway, loosing that connection. There is no consistency. She felt the other side of La Loma is more conducive to a IIB path. Mrs. McNees, 24990 La Loma Drive, reiterated concerns with the 20 foot pathway. She presented three letters of support from their closest neighbors. She noted no erosion concerns, asking to leave the natural path currently used. Mr. McNees presented a photograph showing that there is already a pathway in front of his house. He also noted there was no foundation/structural damage as a result of the 1989 earthquake as per his technical geologist. CLOSED PUBLIC HEARING Planning Commission Minutes DRAFT September 13, 1995 Page 4 I Discussion ensued regarding pathways (#11) and geologic concerns (#12). Commissioner Gottlieb requested a clarification of the geological report and the fault line,referring to Mike Porto's letter. Commissioner Finn did not feel it was up the Commission to make judgments on geology. As far as he was concerned the issue has been handled. He also would nct want a pathway within 5 feet of his bedroom window, suggesting deletion of the request. The front path appears to very native and he did not know why it would n ed to be improved. He would also reduce the rear yard pathway to 8 feet. Commissioner Stutz did not agree with the geologist comments regarding the Berrocal Fault. She was not concerned. Commissioner Schreiner noted that the applicant's own consultant was concerned. Chairman McMahon asked if there was any liability to the Town. Mr. Williams noted the intent of the disclosure statement which would be recorded on the property so futu4e owners would understand that there was a disagreement with'the Town geoogist and the applicant arid his consultant. He also noted that the Council did revievr this question,indicating to staff to try to work out some kind of language and an agreement which would disclose this information with the assistance of the City Attornebr. Discussion ensued regarding condition#11,the front west pathway on La Loma Drive. Commissioner Gottlieb preferred having the City Engineer and Pathway Committee determine if it is adequate as a nztive path(to the satisfaction of the City Engineer and the Pathway Committee)with the trimming of the junipers. It was noted that the pathway would line up with all the segments along the road. There was a consensus to allow the existing pathway condition with the clearing of the junipers and the ability for the City Engineer tiz.include wording regarding any necessary maintenance. Commissioner Stutz suggested apathway on the east side (master pathway plan) . However,this would place pathson three sides of this property. Since the Commission could not agree on the exact wording for the front west pathway, it was suggested to move on to the discussion regarding the other pathway request;the 20 foot wide pathway easement on the south property line. Discussion ensued regarding the 0 foot wide pathway easement along the south property line. It wads noted that the entire property on the southern end was not shown (60 feet in the back); a part of which was the creek owned by the McNees. Chairman McMahon would prefer to take the easement only for future use. She questioned why the request for 20 feet. Brief break at 8:35 p.m. MOTION SECONDED AND PASSED: Motion by Commissioner Finn and seconded by Commissioner Chen'g to approve the site development permit for a second story addition, additions to the first floor, and remodel of an existing residence, and a Planning Commission Minutes DRAFT September 13, 1995 Page 5 variance to allow encroachment into the required side yard setback with the following amendments/changes to the conditions of approval: #11, delete the side yard pathway easement;the rear yard pathway easement shall be 10 feet wide, (easement only,not improved);#19,native path at the front of the house with the junipers trimmed;#12, wording to be reviewed by the City Attorney; and#2,Variance Evaluation and Findings, deleting reference regarding eliminating square footage from one side and moving it to another. AYES: Chairman McMahon,Commissioners Stutz,Schreiner,Gottlieb,Finn& Cheng NOES: None ABSTAIN: Commissioner Doran This item will be on the City Council consent calendar October 4, 1995. 4.3 - LANDS OF LEFEVRE (95-94-TM); Review of Draft Negative Dedaration and Tentative Map for the proposed four lot subdivision of 9.45 acres, located on the south side of Altamont Road,east of Julietta Lane (continued from August 9, 1995). Mr.Williams noted the receipt of two letters;one from Pamela Packard and one from the Fire Department with more specific conditions as to what needs to happen prior to construction on the site. The Fire Department requests could be incorporated into condition#13. Commissioner Doran noted previous discussions relating to a view corridor easement. Mr.Williams commented that the Town has accepted a conservation easement over this property (typical restrictions). One of the benefits of the conservation easement was for visual purposes. There are also CC&Rs from the original subdivision which originally established the conservation easement. The CC&Rs do discuss protection of views for property owners. The Town does not get involved with CC&Rs. It appears that originally there was an intent to protect the view for the Eshners who lived in the main house. However, the conservation easement, as dedicated and accepted by the Town,was not restricted for view purposes. The conservation easement is conserving the slope and the visual buffer along Altamont Road. The Planning Commission and City Council can determine that certain uses can be allowed (other than structures)within the conservation easement. OPENED PUBLIC HEARING Tom LeFevre, 14850 Manuella Road, discussed the history of the purchase of the property,the proposed subdivision, and the previous subdivision proposals. He is not proposing any reduction in the conservation ieasement,just a slight shift south. The submittal is for a four lot subdivision. He has met with many of the neighbors regarding the trimming of the trees and the overall project,spending the most time with the Clearys. Prior to the purchase of the property,the Clearys had a Quiet Title action Planning Commission Minutes DRAFT September 13, 1995 Page 6 with the previous owners over gaining access along the existing driveway. He has inherited that lawsuit. They do lave an agreement in principle which is included in the staff report. He discussed other concerns of the Clearys and offers made to them (trade and/or buying of land, shared driveway). He has continued to allow the Clearys to use the electric gate at the front of the property which is inconvenient to him. He has agreed to let the Clearys have the electric gate and the pillars at the front of the property,to be relocated when the subdivision goes in. He felt he has taken the discussion with the Clearys as faI as he could prior to this meeting. Mr. LeFevre discussed the conditions of approval. #5,the addition of a request for an additional pathway on the eastern boundary of lot 2 which would be intrusive and interferes with privacy for lot 2. #6, changing the conservation easement to include the Heritage Oaks which he felt was not necessary as there is an ordinance which protects Oaks. #8,restricting vehicular acess for lots 1,3 and 4. The previous traffic study did not consider all the possible locations for driveways. A portion of Altamont along lot 4 has adequate sight distance and e would like this to be a possible access. #26,would like to change "significant trees" t "Heritage trees." Bill Kull,20431 Stevens Creek Blvd., Cupertino, discussed the subdivision background, the progression from a EIR to a Negative Declaration. Originally the project was for a six lot subdivision. When it was down sized,it met the CEQA guidelines for categorical exemption and a EIR was no loner necessary. They did use some of the information in the EIR as a planni t g tool to crea le the negative declaration: Nobuko Cleary,26410 Altamont Road, owner of the property which is surrounding by the LeFevre property. Her concerns involved: oak tress being destroyed by the subdivision;preservation of the nature surroundings;opposed the shifting of the conservation easement; and the unlawful construction of a chain link fence which violate the conservation and view easement. She requested that the conservation,view easement be left as is to protect their natural setting and bay view. The shifting of the easement would ruin both. 1 Mr. Webber,26495 Altamont, completely supports the Clearys and was strongly opposed to the shifting of the conservation easement only to be able to build one more house. Richard McGowan,27150 Julietta Lane,was present when the City Council accepted the conservation easement which Jules Eshner placed on the subdivision map in 1976. He read a portion of the resolution which is also the wording on the map noting "a conservation easement reserved f?r preservation of views and slope control purposes." A part of the conservation easemInt was for the sewers. This was accepted by the Town. He felt Mr. IieFevre's application to move the conservation easement to the south would be very disruptive. Planning Commission Minutes DRAFT September 13, 1995 Page 7 John Scott,26385 Altamont Road,was in support of the Clearys. When they purchased the property,it was their understanding that:the easement was valid. When Mr. LeFevre purchased the property he knew of the easement but was hoping to overturn it. He also noted the dangerous stretch of highway by lot 4. Mr. Chan,newest property owner,had signed the petition in favor of not shifting the conservation easement. Gary Cleary,26410 Altamont Road, gave a presentation of five main issues:- (1) impact on there property: commenting on the location of the chain link fence erected by Mr. LeFevre in relationship to his house/cottage;the bulb of Elizabeth Court cul-de-sac being too close to their property; and request for additional setback for separation. (2) Quiet Title action on property not yet settled: driveway not reflected on the map. (3) Elizabeth Court and safe: requesting more buffer area for their living areas; and the site distances coming from Elizabeth Court onto Altamont,requesting the end of the court be moved a little to the left. (4) conservation of the heritage oak forest: some oaks missing on plan; and the easement should be moved to the dripline. (5) the preservation of view and slope conservation easement: request to keep the conservation easement in present location. He discussed the background of the LeFevre subdivision presenting area maps. The road issue has not been finalized as yet. A signed petition of 41 names opposing the relocation of the LeFevre subdivision conservation easement was presented to the Commission. Dr. Cleary discussed the debate over the access easement to the property noting he did not have a recorded easement. He would prefer to come into the property by dropping down and entering from Silent Hills Lanes. It was noted this access went through lot 2 to access Silent Hills Lane. The result would be to lessen the development area of lot 2 making it less than 2 acres. Guy Jinkerson,Environmental Design and Protection Committee, addressed the Commission as both a committee member and a close neighbor. He asked if conservation easements were portable. He was not sure it should be moved just for the adjustment of development. His main concern was for lots 1 and 2. There are at least 20 more oak trees then appear on the map. He did agree with the staff concerns referenced August 9th indicating lots 1 and 2 really work better combined as one lot. To develop this into two lots would cause incredible damage to the natural setting. There was also a safety issue with any road that is brought out onto Altamont. He asked that the Commission review this project carefully as the area provides a beautiful country drive which is rare and worth keeping. Steven Pahl, 27431 Black Mountain Road, discussed corrections to the staff report and issues relating to the review of the Site Development plan in 1989. Many of the issues brought up by the 1989 site development committee have never been addressed including the EIR. Another issue was on page 2 of the staff report regarding trees, specifically lot 2 of the proposed subdivision. It indicates that a conceptual development plan shows that a house can be built without encroaching too close to Planning Commis ion Minutes DRAFT September 13, 1995 Page 8 major trees on lot 2. This has never been the standard in Town. The standard is whether there are any major tree within the building circle on lot 2. The Merrill subdivision was turned down on that issue only. The test il,s "within the building circle are there any major trees." On lots 1 and 2,they cannot say there are no major trees. Another issue relates to the conservation easement adopted by the Town which overlays a private easement by the Clearys. Theirs is purely a view easement. The Town picked up the conservation easement in 1991. He also felt there was an illegal in subdivision done i i 1989 as the front of the Cleary home is clearly facing a lot 2 where there should have been a 40 foot cont setback. If lot 2 is clearly going to have a 40 foot front setback with the access off of Elizabeth Court, there should be 80 feet between the Cleary home and whatever builcing circle you have on lot 2. He suggested a zoning overlay with a 50 foot front setback rather than a 40 foot. Lastly, to approve this subdivision is adopting the problem, acknowledging there is no easement access to the Clearys over the current driveway, Elizabeth Court. He did not believe the Town had the ability to approve this partic lar tentative map without�,the access issues being resolved. Mr. Pahl repeated Mr. LeFevre's request to change "significant trees" to "Heritage trees" (#26) which has never been done as a Commission as "Heritage trees" are a defined term within the Town. He did not believe any of these trees have been defined "Heritage." i Tom LeFevre,in answer to several issues, commented on the following: the fence did have a permit from the Town, and he only put the fence up after the Clearys had trimmed a number of his trees without his permission;he felt he needed to define his property line due to their actions;moving the cul-de-sac up the road; the cul-de-sac edge of pavement being 95 feet tic the corner of Cleary house; the quiet title action and the signed agreemet which commits him to build Silent Hills Lane in return for the Clearys dropping the quiet title action; and trying to maintain the original conservation easement, only shifting it slightly so lot 4 will not be split in the middle by the conservation easement. He noted that there was nothing on his title for this property which gives the Cle'arys a guaranteed view. There is a conservation easement and the wording as stated b,y Mr. McGowan are accurate. It is a conservation easement which includes preservation of view. A l conservation easements talk about views. It conservation easement does not specifically give the Clearys a view easement over the property at a stated elevation. It simply prohibits putting buildings in that area. He further discussed the moving of the conservation easement in relationship to the Clearys view. 1 Commissioner Doran noted for cl rification, that staff recommended that the building site for lot 2 be shifted away from the Clearys property into that flat area. It was Mr. LeFevre's understanding that the uilding sites were put onl the map at this point just to show that a 160 foot building site ould fit on the property not that it was the specific location. He felt this issue should be left until site development. There are several neighbors that ovelook lot 2 that are not here tonight that do not have a chance to comment on what impact movin that building site might have. Planning Commission Minutes DRAFT September 13, 1995 Page 9 Commissioner Doran noted that one of the reasons they like to look at building sites at the time of tentative map is that it allows the Commission,if they want to be restrictive, to inform the applicant that they cannot build in a particular location. As part of the tentative map,she knows this will be discussed. They do send maps forward with restrictions on them and recorded. It was noted that Mr. LeFevre's reference to lots 1 and 2 were actually parcels 1 and 2. CLOSED PUBLIC HEARING MOTION SECONDED AND PASSED: Motion by Commissioner Doran and seconded by Commissioner Stutz to conclude the meeting at 11:00 p.m. AYES: Chairman McMahon, Commissioners Finn, Cheng,Finn&Doran NOES: Commissioners Gottlieb &Schreiner Commissioner Schreiner requested discussion on the conservation easements on lot 4 and on the oak forest. She requested a plan showing an expanded conservation easement in the area of lots 1 and 3. An engineer should review the survey over lots 1 and 2 for accuracy (all significant trees not shown). Mrs. Davis commented that the map in front of the Commissioners should reflect the accuracy of the trees. Also, the ordinance states that a 12 inch or greater in diameter oak is a heritage oak. There are also other trees that are designated heritage. Mr. Williams noted that the applicant needs to include the trees which fall into the building circle on the map. Commissioner Doran felt if the conservation easement was shifted more towards lot 4, the Clearys would actually have a better view. Commissioner Stutz requested that the easement on lot 4 remain as proposed. Commissioner Finn agreed. Commissioner Cheng asked how they could move the conservation easement to make the view better when it is already good. Moving it would decrease the conservation easement. Mr. Williams felt the majority of the Commissioners favored not moving the conservation easement unless Mr. LeFevre and the Clearys can work out some kind of an agreement to restrict this area in some way. Commissioner Gottlieb asked if the bulb on Elizabeth Court could be moved over a little more towards lot 2 which would help if the Clearys gain access to their property. She would also like to see lot 3 with more acreage. Discussion ensued regarding pathways noting Silent Hills Lane does have a pathway easement over it but there does not appear to be a pathway easement from Silent Hills Lane down along the boundary to Altamont. The Commission requested a clarification of the location of pathway easements in this area. The Commission agreed,if the Clearys and applicant could agree, they would be willing to look at an access easement Planning Commiss'on Minutes DRAFT September 13, 1995 Page 10 over lot 2 for the Clearys. Commissioner Schreiner wanted further discussion regarding a request for a pathway between lot 2 and the Cleary property to Elizabeth Court. Commissioner Gottlieb would like the applicant to consider giving lot 2 the option to use Silent Hills Lane. There was!not total agreement to this request. Commissioner Schreiner requested discussion of the Negative Declaration,particularly what may be considered a substantial change. The protection of the wildlife corridor throughout the document was not well addressed (significant impact). The Mitigation Monitoring Program documentn addressed the concerns regarding the wildlife corridor. The mitigation indicates open fecing. However,it was not addressed in the same manner in the Negative Declaration. She would like conditions for the conservation easement to protect the wildlife, addressing fencing,barriers, etc. MOTION SECONDED AND PASSED: Motion by Commissioner Doran and seconded by Chairman McMahon to continue this item to the October 11th meeting. AYES: Chairman McMahon,Commissioners Gottlieb, Stutz,Schreiner,Cheng, Finn&Doran NOES: None All remaining items were continued to the next regularly scheduled meeting. 5. REPORT FROM THE CITY COUNCIL MEETING 5.1 Planning Commission RepLesentative for the September 6th meeting-continued. 5.2 Planning Commission Rep esentative for the September 20th meeting- Commissioner eetin -Commissioner Finn. 6. NEW BUSINESS 6.1 Fremont Hills Country Club-Water quality sample-continued. 7. OLD BUSINESS 7.1 Report from subcommittees. 8. APPROVAL OF MINUTES 8.1 Approval of the August 9, 1995 minutes-continued. 9. REPORT FROM THE SITE DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE MEETINGS OF AUGUST 15 AND 22, AND SEPTEMBER 5, 1995 • Planning Commission Minutes DRAFT September 13, 1995 Page 11 9.1 LANDS OF MOORING, 13791 La Paloma Road; A request for a Site Development Permit for a landscape plan. Approved with conditions August 15, 1995. 9.2 LANDS OF CHEN,27765 Lupine Road; A request for a Site Development Permit for a sport court, cabana and landscape plan. Approved with conditions August 22, 1995. 9.3 LANDS OF LOHR,24000 Oak Knoll Circle (Lot 1); A request for a Site Development Permit for a landscape plan. Approved with conditions September 5, 1995. 10. ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned by consensus at 11:10 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Lani Lonberger Planning Secretary