Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout7.2 Minutes of a Regular Meeting DRAFT Town of Los Altos Hills PLANNING COMMISSION Wednesday,October 11, 1995, 7:00 p.m. Council Chambers,26379 Fremont Road cc: Cassettes#23-95 (2 ) 1. ROLL CALL AND PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE The Planning Commission meeting was called to order at 7:15 p.m. in the Council Chambers at Town Hall. Present: Chairman McMahon,Commissioners Cheng,Doran,Gottlieb,Finn, Schreiner&Stutz 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. PUBLIC.HEARINGS 3.1 LANDS OF LEFEVRE (95-94-TM); Review of Draft Negative Declaration 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) Mrs. Davis introduced the application noting two separate letters had been received from neighbors which were provided to the Commissioners. Commissioner Gottlieb asked if a slope easement should be placed over the area along Altamont. Mrs. Davis commented that there was a 40 foot setback and she was not sure if the slope was beyond the setback. A slope easement over a setback would allow the Town access for maintenance if there was ever a problem with the slope erosion,etc. Commissioner Finn complimented staff for their report,bringing forward concerns mention at the last public hearing. OPENED PUBLIC HEARING Tom LeFevre,24850 Manuella Road, commented on the additional discussions with the Clearys,offering them a revised driveway easement off of Elizabeth Court to their house, although they did not find this proposal acceptable. Discussions will Planning Commission Minutes DRAFT October 11, 1995 Page 2 I j continue. Referring to the staff report,he questioned the 50 foot easement along the property line between the Clearys and lot 2. Instead of a 50 foot easement,he would rather see a 30 foot setback,shifting the building circle further south so that the houses are not opposite each other. The only really flat part of lot 2 for a sport court is along the property line with the Clearys. At the previous meeting,it was mentioned that the setback for the Clearys should have been 40 feet from their house to their propert'line,however it is only 30 feet. In talking to staff,it was noted that the 40i foot setback applies on the side of the property that,has the most heavily traveled road. Ie was not certain which side of the Cleary property has the most heavily traveled road but it was not the west side of their property. He did not feel the 40 foot setback applies in this case. ' p I Gary Cleary,26410 Altamont Road,noted that they have not come to an agreement over any access over Lot 2 from Elizabeth Court. They were looking for something that would helps move the cul;de-sac bulb over . This was,shown on Mr. LeFevre's first map. Mr. Cleary would Pike a better entry into the house,something similar to the way they hay a been coming in. He offered to buy property and share the driveway but they could not come to terms. His understanding was that they would go back to the agreement they had originally worked out before this meeting,which was coming off of Silent Hills'Lane. He felt a 50 foot setback on lot 2 was a compromise,coming all the way down the southerly portion of the property. He further discussed condition#26,noting they have several large oak trees on their property;one with a drip lineelextending onto lot 4 and close,if not over,the driveway which is intended on lot 4. He requested the tree be fenced for protection. He was concerned with the protection of the wild life corridor and wondered how they were going to exist during construction. Debra Bannister 27101 Byrne Park Lane,supports the maintenance of the conservation easement and found no justification for moving it. Regarding the preser ation of oak trees,she requested saving as many as possible when the new homes are built. She was also concerned with the safety of the intersection on Altamont and the new road (Elizabeth Court). Nuboko Cleary,26410 Altamont Road,presented additional signatures supporting the present con rvation easement (on lot 4),opposing any change to it, and provided a copy)of a recorded document accepting the conservation easement on Tract No. 4897, and requested trees be trimmed by Mr. LeFevre. She also requested that the fence around their property which had been put in by Mr. LeFevre be removed. Richard McGowan,27150 Julietta Lane,a former neighbor,added additional information regrding the definition of a conservation easment, commenting that a public;conservation easement'should not be used for private use. • I i•_ Planning Commission Minutes DRAFT October 11, 1995 Page 3 Steven Pahl,27431 Black Mountain Road,complimented staff on their report. He requested the following: condition#6 should be modified to require the removal of the existing fence on the proposed lot 4 in the conservation easement; condition#29, lot 2,the 50 foot setback should go across the common property line;and regarding condition#29,the building circle in the northeast section of lot 2 is drawn with a 30 foot setback. He suggested condition#29 jbe modified to reflect(deed restriction) the building circle be in the southerly half of the property or state that any primary building site be located in the southerly half of lot 2. This would allow a possible secondary structure put in that area. CLOSED PUBLIC TESTIMONY Discussion ensued regarding the different types of conservation easements noting the open space conservation easement on,a portion of lot 4 is not a public open space conservation easement. It was indented for view and slope preservation. Mrs. Davis felt the intent was for no development within the easement. Commissioner Schreiner commented on lot 4 acreage (3.83)which includes the conservation easement of 1.83 acres. However,for purposes of the MDA/MFA,the entire 3.83 is used in the calculations. It was suggested limiting the numbers on lot 4 due to the constraints of the conservation easement. The Commission agreed to the removal o the fence (condition#6),only having fencing (split rail) that would not restrict the movement of wildlife in the conservation easement. Commissioner Gottlieb suggested a slope easement along the banks on Altamont Road (lots 3 and 4). She also discussed the block-like effect around the conservation easement suggesting a conservation easement which flows with the canopy of the trees (follow the slope'of the 30-40% grade). This brought back the discussion regarding a proposed 50 foot setback. Commissioner Stutz felt the Clearys have a 30 foot setback because at the time this property was subdivided, a 30 foot setback was all that was required on any of the four sides as it is an interior lot. This would also occur on lot 2 as it iso an entirely enclosed lot. It was suggested that language be added to inform potential buyers that the building site on lot 2 should be neighbor friendly (front door should not face the Clearys front door). The staff recommended that the Commisi ion establish a greater building setback from the east property line,which is the common line with the Cleary property. An increased setback(50 feet)would prevent any new development from infringing too close to the Cleary home (condition#29). Commissioner Doran suggested tailoring the setback. Mr.Williams suggested perhaps the 50 foot setback stop in the area of the existing sewer easement,going back to 30 feet for the remainder of the lot. Commissioner Schreiner discussed the MDA/MFA numbers for lot 4 and the fact that a structure would be reasonably visible from Altamont. It was suggested using the figures excluding the conservation easement area. She further discussed the ! j Planning Commission Minutes DRAFT October 11, 199 Page 4 location of Elizabeth Court. The Clearys preferred the former location of Elizabeth Court. Commissioner Gottlieb asked if the court could be moved a little more towards lot 2 and give lot 1 more area. Mr.Williams noted an added condition of approval (#30)requiring the paved surface of the public road(Elizabeth Court)not be closer than 3�0 feet from the common property line between lots 1 and 4 and the Cleary lot. He noted that lot 2 could not be subdivided. Discussion ens ed regarding,the pathway as the applicant had requested the requirement for' an easement on the easterly side of lot 2 be eliminated as a path in that location asit would create a privacy problem for whoever developed that lot. The applicant was asked at the previous meeting to provide an alternate connection. Condition#5 addressed the pathway easement,suggesting adding "at the top of the bank'after "along Altamont Road...". � I Bill Kull,applicant's engineer,suggested the possibilityof taking the pathway easement along the northerlyiedge of lot 2 and then bringing it along the westerly edge to keep the pathway away from any proposed development between the Cleary house and any new development on lot 2. Commissioner Stutz felt this proposal would create a very:steep path. MOTION SECONDED,AMENDED AND PASSED: Motion by Commissioner Finn and seconded bey Commissioner Stutz and amended to recommend to the City Council approval of the Negative Declaration and Tentative Tract Map for a four lot subdivision with the following amendments/changes: lot 4 conservation easement fencing shall no interfere with the movement of wildlife;require a 10 foot wide slope easement along the banks on Altamont Road;on lot2,setback shall be 40 feet where adjacent o the lands of Cleary structure;MDA/MFA calculations for lot 4 exclude the conservation easement area;note on subdivision map the requirement for a step down foundation on lot 2;and added wording to condition#5, "10 foot pathway easement on the easterly side of lot 2." AYES: Chairman McMahon,Commissioners Schreiner,Cheng,Gottlieb,Finn, Stutz &Doran NOES: None This item will be noticed for public hearing for a City Council agenda. 3.2 ,LANDS OF MATHIASON, 13850 Paseo Del Roble (58-94-ZP-SD-GD); A request Mr a Site Development Permit for a major addition/remodel and landscape improvements. I I Staff introduced this item noting there had been a question from a Commissioner prior to the meeting regarding how the property was developed with several thousand square feet more than allowed by the MDA. Mr's. Davis researched the Planning Commission Minutes DRAFT October 11, 1995 Page 5 building permit history on the property and found everything had been permitted. It appeared there had been an error in 197 when approval was given without counting the 3,900 square feet of driveway. There was also a question regarding a parking area near the front of the property which appears to be in the right-of-way. This appears to be the only item constructed without a permit. Commissioner Gottlieb felt the new construction creates a three story facade. Mrs. Davis commented that this was a very steep site. This project has been in progress since April 1994. Staff has done extensive work on this project with three geotechnical reports to work with and two architects,with many plan revisions prior to noticing for public hearing. Staff felt the architect,had done a good job in designing the additions to integrate into the existing structure,including extensive landscaping to the front of the property. The assistant engineer recommended the parking area near the front of the property be removed since it was not permitted. Commissioner Stutz noted that the applicant plans to plant a number of trees including three 48- inch box oaks requesting this be a part of the conditions of approval as required planting. OPENED PUBLIC HEARING Tamara Kron, 106 W. Campbell Avenue,Campbell, architect,noting much of the construction on the property was done prior to the slope calculation formula change. There was nothing built without permits. There is a very large conservation easement constraining the lot and there is a.need for some flat area due to a family disability. She noted that the highest point of the new addition is only 24 inches above the existing edge ridge beam. David Britt, 16400 Englewood Avenue,Los Gatos, clarified the elevations, commenting that the property is so long he actually cut the house in half and presented it on two different pages. He clarified that the clear story window was not a second floor but a tall ceiling to capture light into an interior hallway and is only 18 inches higher than the existing ridge. He did not feel the design would look like a three story house as the clear story location is not as high as what is behind it. Chairman McMahon commented that the Town always asks applicants to step down houses down hills which the applicant has done and they are not exceeding the 35 feet in total (lowest to highest). They hate complied with all the rules. Gary Mathiason, 13850 Paseo Del Roble, applicant,was available for questions, noting they have been through a 21/2 year process off trying to make sure they complied with all the necessary requirements. He discussed the design, staying within the guidelines and ordinances of the Town. CLOSED PUBLIC TESTIMONY I _ I i - Planning Commission Minutes DRAFT October 11, 199 Page 6 Staff felt all issues of concern'stated by the Town geologist have been addressed. Discussion by the Commission included: the asphalt which is currently in the road right-bf-way to be removed along with the small section shown on the map,inside the property line;the existing retaining walls are wooden and the new retaining walls Will be concrete or concrete block with the highest part of the wall being 8' 6" which is the actual wall of the house;and the planting in the conservation easement will be wildflower hydroseed for erosion control and 48 hitch box oaks. Chairman McMahon felt the design was exceptionally attractive,with nice lines, and well done on a very difficult site. For informational purposes,she noted a ditch on the side of the read on Altamont and that the path would'need to bridge the ditch, asking staff to investigate. , , MOTION SECONDED AND PASSED: Motion by Commissioner Doran and seconded by Commissioner Finn to approve the site development permit for additions to and remodel of an existing residence and landscape improvements with changes/amendments to the conditions of approval to include the following: planting within the conservation easement should be native species; and asphalt in the road right-of-way to be removed along with the small section shown on the map, inside;the property line. AYES: Chairman McMahon,Commissioners Stutz,;Schreiner,Cheng,Doran &Finn NOESI: Commissioner Gottlieb This approval is subject to a 21 day appeal period. 3.3 !LANDS OF WU, 130731Cumbra Vista Court (123-95-ZP-SD-VAR); A request for a Site`Development Permit for a new garage, and a variance to encroach into the setback. Ms.Manca introduced this item. She provided a revised Worksheet#2 for the Commissioners review. She recommended an additional condition of approval (deed restriction) stating the floor area is close to the maximum permitted at this time. � I I I OPENED PUBLIC HEARING Herbert Wu, 13073 Cumbra Vista, applicant,was asked byChairman McMahon if PP � there was a dooi from the garage to the house. The applicant replied that a door could ;replace the windows from the family room facing the garage. Commissioner Schreiner asked why he did not have the driveway go straight into the garage. Mr. Wu responded it was due to two trees which he did not want to remove. Due to the slope of the proierty,he was not able to build the garage tinder the deck without � I ! 1 II I Planning Commission Minutes DRAFT October 11, 1995 Page 7 building a large retaining wall. He purchased the property three years ago without a garage. CLOSED PUBLIC TESTIMONY MOTION SECONDED AND PASSED: Motion by Commissioner Stutz and seconded by Commissioner Doran to approve the site development permit and variance for a new garage located within the side setback with an additional condition of approval requiring a deed restriction stating the floor area is close to the maximum permitted at this time. AYES: Commissioners Finn,Stutz,Schreiner,Cheng&Doran NOES: Chairman McMahon&Commissioner Gottlieb This approval is subject to a 21 day appeal period. 4. REPORT FROM THE CITY COUNCIL MEETING 4.1 Commissioner Gottlieb noted the following items were discussed: Lands of Lohr, 12101 Oak Park Court;Lands of McNees,24990 La Loma Drive;Lands of Micko;the proposed Capital Improvements Budget FY 1995-96;and a special public hearing for the Lands of Vidovich October 30, 1995. 4.2 The October 18th City Council meeting has been canceled. 5. NEW BUSINESS • 5.1 Rescheduling of the November 22nd Planning Commission Meeting (Thanksgiving Holiday) to November 29th. Passed by consensus: To reschedule the November 22nd meeting to November 29th. 6. OLD BUSINESS 6.1 Report from subcommittees. Commissioner Doran reported on the Planning Issues subcommittee regarding remodels,non-conforming structures, and defacto subdivisions. Their next meeting is scheduled for October 18th. 7. APPROVAL OF MINUTES 7.1 Approval of the September 26, 1995 minutes. MOTION SECONDED AND PASSED BY CONSENSUS: To approve the September 26th minutes. Planning Commission Minutes DRAFT October 11, 1995 Page 8 � I 7.2 Approval of the September 27, 1995 minutes. MOTION SECONDED AND',PASSED BY CONSENSUS: To approve the September 27th minutes with a minor change on page 2 . 8. REPORT FROM THE SITE DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE MEETINGS OF SEPTEMBER 26 AND OCTOBER 10, 1995 8.1 LANDS OF LEE,2775i. Lupine Road; A request for a Site Development Permit for a pool,spa and decking. Approved with conditions September 26, 1995. 8.2 LANDS OF MAC RITCHIE,26630 Purissima Road; A request for a Site Development Permit fora pool,spa and landscape,plan. Approved with conditions October 10, 1995. 8.3 i LANDS OF CHRONIS14269; A request for a Site Development Permit for a I pool and spa. Approved with conditions October 10, 1995. 9. ! ADJOURNMENT i i I The meeting w s adjourned by consensus at 9:25 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Lani Lionberger Planning Secretary I I II ` � I I I I