HomeMy WebLinkAbout01/24/1973PLAPINIMG COK4ISSION
T(V�41 OF LOS ALTOS HILLS
MLIUTES OF A REGULAR MEETING
January 24, 1973
Reel PC 12; Side 2; Track 2 000 - 1109
Chairman AcReynolds called the regular meeting of the Planning Commission of the
Town of Los Altos Hills to order at 7:55 P.M. in the City Council Chambers of
the Town Hall, 26379 Fremont Road, Los Altos Hills, California. The following
members answered roll call: Present: Commissioners Lachenbruch, Mueller,
Spencer, Perkins and Chairman .'k Reynolds. Absent: Comnissioners t4eisbart and
Magruder.
CITY COUNCIL REPRESENTATIVE: Councilman Miller.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES: January 10, 1973. Commissioner Art Lauchenbruch stated
that he had two corrections on Page 2, Item 3. 1) and Item 3. 2), as follows:
3. 1) The misrepresentation in this report of the word "minority", i.e.,
minority = low income; low income = minority. The interchangeable
use in this report of the terms "minority" and "low income". Failure
to make a distinction between the meaning of these terms only com-
plicates our already difficult problems. If an anolicant is refused
a loan because of low income, it is logically, ethically, and legally
different than refusal because he is a member of an ethnic or racial
minority. A similar argument applies to low density zoning.
3. 2) The implication that business should be run for the nublic welfare.
Business should have a right to make legitimate judgments relative
to risks in its loans, etc. Business should be run accordion to law,
and laws and effective enforcement should assure the rights of minorities.
Landlords and lending institutions should not he criticized for making valid
legal judgments, based on their profit motive, e.g., in judging the risk of
applicants. The validity of the lav -income criterion is not addressed in this
report. Ethnic and racial criteria are neither legal nor valid, and this report
properly emnhasized the need for law enforcement in that area.
MOTIOM, SECONDED ANO CARRIED: Commissioner Mueller moved, seconded by McReynolds
and carried by majority vote (Commissioners Perkins and Snencer abstained, due
to their absence at the meeting at the last Planning Commission meeting) to
approve the January 10, 1973 minutes with the above corrections.
COMMUNICATIONS: Letter from !like Anderson, age 14, of 12519 Valley View Drive,
os tos, re: suggested uses of El Retiro property in Los Altos. The City
Manager was asked to respond to this c ommunication.
PLANNItVG COMISSION H MUTES - January 24, 1973 Pane 2 -
COMMITTEE REPORTS: Commissioner Lauchenbruch stated that he had substituted
or omnissioner i'.ueller at the Housing Subcommittee meetine of the Planning
Policy Comritte along with Councilman 'i:iller. The County Plannino Staff had
prepared a rebuttal to the Los Altos Hills objectives report, which was distri-
buted to the Plannino Policy Committee. Commissioner Lauchenbruch stated
that he would like to fill in for Commissioner 'lueller; Chairman ficReynolds
stated that he thought it was a good idea to have a back -un.
Councilman 'Miller commended Commissioner Lauc bnbruch for the excellent detailed
study that he presented for Los Altos 'sills.
Commissioner Lauchenbruch stated that the Los Altos Hills rebuttal had been
distributed to all the communitics and will be discussed anain at the next
Pla:ioinn, Policy Committea neatino on February 14, 1073.
ADJOURN TO STUDY SESSION: 8:25 - 9:15 P.1.
Nr. Tom Vlasic, of the Tot -in Planner's office, read the nolicy statement regard-
ing swimming pools and discussion was continued on "Fair Housing in Santa Clara
County" (SGC Jt:CH_P-10). These two iters were continued from the last Planning
Commission meeting of January 10, 1973.
RECESS: 9:15 P.iii.
RECONVENE TO REGULAR SESSION: 9:30 P. -Ii,
SCHEDULED ITE!1 'N0. 1:
VARIA7CE REQUEST OF DR. ARTHUR, J. ?'.0 PADDEi!, JR. (11-382-73) FOR REDUCTION OF
REQUIRED SETBACKS TO ALLOT ADDITIONS TO HOUSE AND FOR S11111`'WIG POOL AT 25881
ESTACADA DRIVE, PER PLATS O'i: FILE AT 70110' HALL.
fir. George FIader, Town Planner, reviewed this variance, ner his Staff Report
of January 17, 1973. The applicant requested a variance to allow for: (1) a
study -bath oortion of a new a-dition to the �.iest end of the existinn residence
within 34 feet of the front, southern property line; (2) a family room and
adjoining deck structure to the northeast corner of the existing residence
within 22 feet of the side, eastern, property line and within 21 feet of the
rear, northern property line; (3) a swimmino pool within 29 feet of the front,
southern property line and within 18 feet of the rear, northern property line.
The Town Planner recommended that the variance be ^ranted with the condition
that additional landscaping be introduced along the rear, northern oronerty
line from the western linit, east to approximately the center of the oronerty
line, sufficient to provide visual buffering between the pool area and the
Strayer resieence. Landscapino plans to be submitted iith the building permit
and be satisfactory to the City ?Tanager. Plants to be installed and maintained.
The property is just under one-half acre in size, and apparently subdivision of
the land and construction of the existing residence occurred prior to establish-
ment of the one -acre minimum and existing zoning setback requirements, t-hich
severely reduces the usable space on existing small lots, particularly where
there is an odd lot shape, as in the case of the applicant.
PLIC ANC COi!1!MlriJ-1JUTES - Januari 24, 1e73 Pao 3 -
�" r
Commissioner +ueller stated that he ',as concerned about the variance for the
swirrmin� pool, as it anneared that the lot woulr' Le over -developed, or +eould
be if this variance !aas ^ranted. I1c felt that it +•otil(i he better to break
doaan the vd mminn pool into a. senarate variance. Cora"issioner Perkins concurrc-d.
Via City Aanager clas asked by Chairman licrevnolds if the trio variances could be
broken out. 'Ie replied that they could be nranted senirately or together.
Commissioner Perkins asked+ghat the sienificance of the "deed setback" +.+as, and
if the Pool care .ithin this "deed setback". 1'rs. "c"a,+den stated that this
;ad been set by the builder 25 vears ace; t!:at it exrires next year; and that the
title company is no!,, researching the Problem.
Ii0TI1,11, SEMIDED AilD CARRIED: Corvoissioner Snenc=r moved, seconded by f"ueller
and carried by unanirous vote that the house addition variance be nranted and
the swimminn cool variance be continued to such time as the deed restriction is
clarified by the title company, in accordant^ with the six criteria of Section
9-5.905(b), and that the rnviron+^ental imnact has been deterrinee to be trivial.
SCHEDULED ITE'1.10. 2:
VARIAPICE P"UEST 'iF P?'lERT 1. ":UTTI (1-3n3-73) FOR E"iT"Y DrCY TO C'i"9F !+ITN I'!
22' OF THE :1ORTI1 SIDE PrPERTY LI`!F ,11D T!IF !!OUSE Tn OVE "ITA 1 24' OF TNF
SOUTH SIDE PPIPERTY LLIE 01 LOT #27. YALE CnUn.T PAGE `!ILL ESTATES.
The To -in Planner revie,sed this variance, Per his Staff Renort of January 17,
1973. The applicant requested a variance to alloy+ a nes:, residence to come
within 24 feet of the southern, side pronerty line and a dee!: structure adioininp
t:io northern side o` the nei residence to core +•,ithin 22 feet of the northern,
side property lire. Initially, the anolicant's site elan required a variance
for only the decking structure; however, he has revised the an with the house
rotated to *hat the arelicant believes is a more favorable Position. This
variance is rased on `+is revised clan, received at To+ -n Ball on danuary 10, 1973.
Ti+e pronerty is difficult to develon, due to tae small available buildinn snace
within the reouired setbacks, easily accessible from Yale Court. The nronerty
is of unusual size and t000pranhy in that it is steep and bas a narro,,r frontage
on Yale Court. The tononranhv lirits the most logical buildinn site too close
to Yale Court and the surroundings are also somewhat unusual because of the
close proximity of IS 2'30 and Pape i!ill/IS 2Pl Tnterchanne to the nronerty.
From the review of the site plan and an on-site inspection, it was determined
by the To+an Planner that miner 'house rotation, suggested by the annlicant, is
reasonable in terms of deereasinn the visual and noise imna.ct on the nr000sed
residence from IS 280 and Pane "i II Interchancs, and the nrsitinnine will im-
prove the visual relationship of the nerr residence +<ith the Osborn residence,
+.chile having little or no additional effect on the residence to the southwest.
The City 11anager read a letter from 1;r. Charles L. Osborn, the affected neinhbor,
objecting to a 10 -foot deck. He stated in his letter that a 4 -foot deck u+as
allo�,ed by code, but that he +?ould have no objection to an r, -foot deck. The
annlicant, ':r. 'lutto, stated that an 8 -foot deck would be anreeahle to him and
that he mould be milling to Plant trees alonq the edoe of the deckinn.
PLAA.MIG C0 1USSI'M HAUTES - January 24, 1373 Fame 4 -
�►' XTION, SECONDED AAD CARRIED: Commissioner Perkins moved, seconded by •Nueller,
and carried unanimously that the variance request of Robert A. Mutto (V-372-73)
be granted with the house rotation, as shown on the revised plan, with an
3 -foot deck up to the entry noint of the house and a 10 -foot aide deck from
that point on, in accordance with the six criteria of Section 9-5.9n5(b), and
that the degree of environmental impact has been determined to be trivial.
SCHEDULED ITEM '10. 3:
DUILD1,10 SITE APPROVAL (5SA-80-72) FOR ONE LOT, K?0!'i AS LOT #10, TRACT #2062,
LOCATED ON LA CRESTA. DRIVE, EXTENDI>In THROUGH TO AIIACAPA DRIVE. APPLICA"IT:
JACK P. KIL3UR".
The City Manager's raemorandu i, dated December 21, 1972, v,as read to the Planning
Commission. He stated that this lot has a history of slides and is considered
by some geologists to be unstable. A soils investigation eras made in 4nril 1972,
and this report c!as revieved by 0r. Jon Cumminns, i -'ho emnhasized that the building
site is limited in size, due to the slide area -on the southeastern part of the
property; tae building site exists only for a structure with a nronerl.y engineered
foundation; reasonable stability or the access and building site to be achieved
only by a well -engineered site develonment plan, including permanent renair of
the slide area to prevent its reactivation and encroachment on the building site,
adequate retaining walls, drainane, and low water -demand landscanina.
Staff recommended that the problem of the unstable soil on the lot be solved;
provisions for the necessary work be done in conjunction with the buiidinn rro-
gram; have a detailed soil and geologic renort made for the entire lot; require
all foundation and other e!ork on this lot to be engineered by a structural
engineer; require a close coordination between the soils ennineer and the
structural engineer in the oreparation of site develop'ent p'anp and all work on
this lot to be under the close supervision of a qualified so"s or structural
engineer.
Chairman 1cReynolds asked if fIr, andlor 'irs. Kilburn were present. They were
not; ho -over, -ir. �'Iill Gunnino of 12030 La Cresta Drive, ov!ner of the lot to
the south, stated that he !gas very interested in Dr. Curmin•(s' renort. The Town
Planner responded that this las all a matter of public record, and that '1r.
Gunning e'as welcome to examine it. 'r. Fred Tice of 26435 A.nacana Drive spoke
of the severity e` the slides.
f7r. Stanley Corbett, 26440 Anacapa Drive, compiled and distributed a history of
the principle communications relatinn to the land of Jack P. Kil;-_-urn hetvreen
Anacapa and La Cresta Prives. This document listed 4^ different dates bet,!een
February 1969 and Dece•iber 21, 1972, on which there !gad been communications
entered into this file; however, to date, no corrective action has been taken.
Chairman McReynolds stated that he thounht corrective action should he taken
on the prooerty to insure Droner drainage, as well as minimization of the slone
to avoid a massive mud flow!.
PLA!iHI)!G COiit1ISSIOa 1IVU7E5 - January 2a, 1973 Pane 5 -
;1OTIOH, SECONDED AIM CARRIED: Conmissioner Perkins moved, seconded by "yeller
�* and carried by unanimous vote that this "uilding Site Approval be denied mith-
out prejudice and that the annlicant can request this ratter to be reconsidered
at a future date.
SCHEDULED IMI `!0. 4:
BUILDI'G SITE APPROVAL (7SA-93-72) FOR O:NS LOT, Y;!O'�I AS P:SSESSOP'S PPRCEL
90. 132-29-29 (PORTIJ:!) !ND BEI'IG A PORTION OF LOT 21 nF THE PLANCO RAMC'!,
LOCATED 01 C611TRAL DRIVE. APPLICANT: '.T.. & [IRS. JON"! STEERS.
The City 'tanager read a communication, dated January 24, 1973, from "rs. Steers,
stating that she would tike this item continued to a future date. He also stated
that it has been the Planning Commission's policy not to continue agenda items
for an indefinite period of time, but rather to a "date certain". As a result,
three options are available: 1) specify a snecific date to which the annlicant
wishes this matter to be continued for further consideration; 2) withdrar<al of
the application and the unexpended portion of the Building Site Anproval deposit
will be refunded: 3) the Planning Commission deny the requested Building Site
Approval without prejudice, which could alloiq the annlicant to resubmit an
application at some future date.
WTIOId, SECONDED AND CARRIED: Commissioner '±ueller moved, seconded by Perkins
and carried by unanimous vote that this matter be continued to the next Planning
Commission meeting of February 14, 1973.
SCHEDULED ITV1:10. 5:
TENTATIVE 'LAP OF EDGERTW! COOLEY (396-72), 12 LOTS, 29.54 :.ROSS ACRES, LOCATED
0d EDGERTO3 ROAD. EMR. J.W. RILEY. _.
Applicant requested that this matter be continued to the Plaiiinn Commission
meeting of February 14, 1973.
MTIOA, SECONDED ARID CARRIED: Commissioner '°ueller moved, seconded by Perkins
and carried by unanimous vote that this :matter be continued to the Planning
Commission meeting of February 14, 1973, per apnlicant's request.
OTHER BUSI"DESS BY PLAN II1G COTIISSI0[iERS:
110TIOrd, SECONDED AAD CARRIED: Commissioner Spencer moved, seconded by !!ueller
and carried by unanimous vote that the swimming pool and tennis court policies,
read by the T'-vn Planner during Study Session, be fonaardee to the City Council
for adoption as Torrn policies.
Chairman McReynolds stated that the Planning Policy Committee document on
Urban Develonment/Open Space Plan for Santa Clara County should be placed on the
Study Session agenda for the next Planning Commission neetinn, as well as an
abbreviated statement with more general comments on "Fair Housing in Santa Clara
County", as discussed in Study Session.
ADJOUR,WE,!T: The meeting was adjourned at 10:50 P.!1. to:
NEXT REGULAR NEETI:IG: Ilednesday, February 14, 1973, at 7:45 R.I.
Respectfully submitted,
CRUCE G. LA'ISfM
lm City '%nager