Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout09/13/1989( MINUTES OF A REGULAR MEETING fir' TOWN OF LOS ALTOS HILLS 26379 Fremont Road Los Altos Hills, California Wednesday, September 13, 1989 Chairman Emling called the meeting to order at 7:30 P.M. in the Town Hall Council Chambers. A. ROLL CALL AND PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE• Present: Commissioners Carico, Comiso, Jones, Noel, Pahl, Stutz and Chairman Boling Absent: None Staff: Bill Ekern, Director of Public Works, Ann Jamison, Planning Director, Leslie Mullins, Planning Secretary B. CONSENT CALENDAR: MOTION SECONDED AND CARRIED: Moved by Noel, seconded by Stutz and passed unanimously to approve minutes of July 26, 1989 with no corrections C. REPORT FROM CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF SEPTEMBER 6, 1989: Commissioner Carico reported the City Council heard under presentations from the floor concerns over Mayor's activities; continued consideration of LoConte until Planning Commissions recommendation; Hansen appeal withdrawn; Quattrone appeal with- drawn; discussion over proposed new zoning ordinance changes, and fee schedule; and discussion over utility pole on the Oshima prop- erty off Fremont Road. With regard to discussion over the Quarry property, Mr. Ekern informed Commission that Mr. Vidovich has prepared a new tentative map and issues are still being addressed by the Town Geologist, Wm. Cotton & Associates. Chairman Emling introduced and welcomed Ms. Ann Jamison, the Town of Los Altos Hills' new Planning Director. D. REPORT FROM SITE DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE MEETINGS OF AUGUST 1St. 15th: 22nd: 29th and September 12, 1989: MOTION SECONDED AND CARRIED: Moved by Jones, seconded by Noel and passed unanimously to move Item "D" to "H.2." PRESENTATIONS FROM THE FLOOR: F. PUBLIC HEARINGS: Passed by consensus to hear public hearing #1 prior to #2, with applicant's consent. 2. LANDS OF QUATTRONE, 13432 Middle Fork Lane, Request for ap- proval of site development permit for proposed new residence and swimming pool Mr. Ekern referred to September 13, 1989 staff report, informing Commission a previous application for site development was denied by the Commission (4-2), noting concerns raised at that time: con- struction on hilltops and ridgelines,and the inappropriatness of a two-story structure on this site in terms of visual impact genera- ted by its vertical mass. Mr. Ekern informed Commission the ap- plicant has met several times with staff to work toward a project that will cause a minimum of impact to the site and off site views. Mr. Ekern further noted the Quattrone's have prepared a detailed photo study of the site to assist in understanding the impact of their project and a detailed landscape plan to show mitigation measures for screening of the structure from off site. Mr. Ekern gave a brief slide show presentation showing various ex- isting homes constructed within the Town, some of which are built into the natural settings and others which are constructed on top of the ridgelines. Commissioners questioned why staff has given no recommendation on this project? Mr. Ekern explained that during the several meet- ings with the applicant, staff wasn't strongly moved to make a recommendation either way, and that the application stands on its own, noting he would prefer that the Quattrone's give their presentation. Mr. Ekern added the staff report from July 20, 1989 gives the Commission recommended site development conditions if the project is approved. PLANNING COMMISION DISCLOSURES• Chairman Emling reported he received a telephone call from Mrs. Quattrone and spoke with her regarding aspects of their project, noting she asked if he would meet with them at the Site, he then advised her the City Attorney advised he visit the site alone. Commissioners Carico, Jones, Noel, Pahl, Stutz, indicated they have visited the site, and have spoke with Mrs. Quattrone on the telephone. Commissioner Comiso noted she has discussed the revisions with Mrs. Quattrone, visited the site three times, and again with the Quattrone's when the balloons were up to height to show ultimate heights. Commissioner Jones informed fellow Commissioners and public he is Acting Chairman, until Chairman Emling returns from Back to School Night. 9a The Public Hearing was then opened Mr. and Mrs. Quattrone, 148 Kelton Avenue, San Carlos, informed Commissioners since the last public hearing they have met with Mr. Ekern to discuss the reasons for the denial of the site develop- ment permit, and have prepared overviews of the height changes made to the residence from all elevations, as well as locations of existing and proposed landscaping for mitigation of the structure from neighboring properties and ridges. Mr. and Mrs. Quattrone also presented a slide presentation of their property as viewed from off site vistas, noting they believe their proposal meets the spirit of the requirements for building within the Town of Los Altos Hills. Mr. Andrew Ribner, 13140 Byrd Lane, expressed to Commission that the Quattrone's have tried to take into account the neighborhoods concerns on the development of this property, and privacy of their properties and views. The Public Hearing was then opened, Chairman Emling returned. Commissioners commented on the thorough presentation by the Quat- trone's and their attempt to lessen the bulkiness and height of the proposed structure. Commissioners requested the trees men- tioned in the Quattrone's presentation be redlined as required to remain and protected during construction. MOTION SECONDED AND CARRIED: Moved by Noel, seconded by Comiso �I and passed unanimously to approve the Site Development Permit, for construction of residence and swimming pool, Lands of Quattrone, 13432 Middle Fork Lane, subject to conditions of approval listed in the July 20, 1989 staff report, with amendments as follows: 3. A landscape planting plan is to be provided for site develop- ment committee review prior to the final building inspection, drought tolerant plantings and drip or low -flow irrigation systems are recommended, mature trees may be required to be planted. Color chip shall be submitted for review by Site Development Com- mittee at time of landscape plan review. 6. The pathway is to be reconstructed prior to the issuance of any occupancy permits, driveway at pathway crossing is to scarified. 13. Fencing shall be installed to protect existing major oak trees at drip line. 1. LANDS OF YUE, FILE #VAR 8-89, 26131 Elena Road, Request for approval of Variance and Site Development Permit for proposed new residence and swimming pool Commissioners questioned if the existing berms on the property could be modified to give more room without requiring a variance and if the septic drainfields could be relocated, perhaps closer to the berms if allowed by the Health Department. Mr. Ekern in- formed Commission the earth berms are part of the required sub- division improvements for mitigation of noise from freeway, noting if modified it would be required they are validated to meet the sound limitations set for the subdivision. Mr. Lesetar informed the Commission that the applicant would like to request continuance of this item, to work with staff on redesign, with the possible modifications to berm and moving ga- rage back slightly, so as not to require a variance as suggested by Commissioners. MOTION SECONDED AND CARRIED: Moved by Pahl, seconded by Jones and Passed unanimously to continue the Lands of Yue, File #VAR 8-89, 26131 Elena Road to allow applicant to proceed with redesign without the requested variance LIM Mr. Ekern referred to September 13, 1989 staff report informing Commission the subject property was created by in 1989 by Parcel Map, Lands of Lotus Investors. He noted that it was previously determined by the Commission that the requested variance applica- tkw ion did not meet the required findings in order to grant variance approval. At that time the applicant requested continuance for redesign. Mr. Ekern informed Commission the redesign included driveway being modified to not require a retaining wall or grading within ten feet (10') of the property line, except for portion needed for backup space from the garage. Mr. Ekern noted that the proposed driveway extends along the property line to enter the ga- rage at the end of the house opposite the entry to the property. This was done in an effort to maximize the development floor area in the buildable area of the property. He explained that the house has been forced, due to the location of septic drainfields and drainage easement, to the uppermost edge of the site. The proposed residence is to be two storys, and runs with the contours of the land and steps down to a lower level. Mr. Ekern indicated that staff was unable to make the required findings for a variance, noting if the Commission is able to, the required findings are at- tached to staff report, as are suggested conditions of approval for the site development permit. PLANNING COMMISSION DISCLOSURES* All Commissioners noted they have been to the subject property and viewed the site, for either this present hearing or the previous. The Public Hearing was then opened. L( \v Mr. Alex Lesetar, Progressive Design, informed Commission they are requesting the variance to allow adequate back up space, which will require retaining wall. Commissioners questioned if the existing berms on the property could be modified to give more room without requiring a variance and if the septic drainfields could be relocated, perhaps closer to the berms if allowed by the Health Department. Mr. Ekern in- formed Commission the earth berms are part of the required sub- division improvements for mitigation of noise from freeway, noting if modified it would be required they are validated to meet the sound limitations set for the subdivision. Mr. Lesetar informed the Commission that the applicant would like to request continuance of this item, to work with staff on redesign, with the possible modifications to berm and moving ga- rage back slightly, so as not to require a variance as suggested by Commissioners. MOTION SECONDED AND CARRIED: Moved by Pahl, seconded by Jones and Passed unanimously to continue the Lands of Yue, File #VAR 8-89, 26131 Elena Road to allow applicant to proceed with redesign without the requested variance LIM Pat Webb, Brian Kangas Faulk (BKF), Engineer for the project in- troduced Jim Walsh, also with BKF, who could respond to questions on the drainage design. Ms. Webb noted that the property owner stands by his request for six lots explaining that in their opinion the acreage on the Property could actually support seven lots. Ms. Webb then ask for clarification of several of the ap- proval conditions outlined in the staff report relative to path- ways, drainage, street trees, sight distance on Prospect and the kw 3. LANDS OF FINN, FILE #TM 2-89, Prospect Avenue, Request for recommendation of approval of proposed six (6) lot subdivision Mr. Ekern referred to September 13, 1989 staff report informing Commission the applicant proposes to subdivide the 8.25 acre par- cel into 6 lots, noting the property is currently within the County and would require annexation prior to recordation of the Final Map, as the property is within the Town's Urban Service Area. Mr. Ekern referred to concerns related to this subdivision; i.e., .pathway access, number of lots according to Town's Subdivi- sion Ordinances, connection to public sewers, safety of Prospect Avenue. With regard to the number of lots, Mr. Ekern informed Commission the property with the proposed roadway, has a potential for 6 lots. He expressed concern that meeting such a number may be inappropriate if the openness of the hillside and knoll is to be retained, as the proposed lots generally have a Lot Unit Factor of 1.0, the minimum required by ordinance. Mr. Ekern noted the Nega- tive Declaration and Environmental Assessment were prepared for this project and are attached to the staff report. Comments were received in accordance with the review period from July 5, 1989 to July 19, 1989 and are also attached. Mr. Ekern noted his concern that the Negative Declaration would be difficult to certify if mitigation of the impact of the development on the knoll was not included. Mr. Ekern recommended that the Commission: 1) recommend to the City Council that the Council certify the Negative Declara- tion with adequate mitigation of the impacts of the development; and 2) recommend to the City Council that the Council approve the requested tentative map based on the findings presented in the September 13, 1989 staff report and subject to the suggested con- ditions of approval. PLANNING COMMISSION DISCLOSURES- IS LOS RES•Commissioners Commissionersnoted they visited site. Commissioner Stutz noted she spoke with applicant at site development. Commissioner Comiso noted she had walked the site. The Public Hearing was opened. Stephen Finn, 24880 Prospect, noted that he had committed to the previous owner when he purchased the property that he would preserve the existing residence which was constructed in the late 1800's. He explained that in order to do that he needed to sub- divide the property. Pat Webb, Brian Kangas Faulk (BKF), Engineer for the project in- troduced Jim Walsh, also with BKF, who could respond to questions on the drainage design. Ms. Webb noted that the property owner stands by his request for six lots explaining that in their opinion the acreage on the Property could actually support seven lots. Ms. Webb then ask for clarification of several of the ap- proval conditions outlined in the staff report relative to path- ways, drainage, street trees, sight distance on Prospect and the kw extension of sewer and provision of laterals along Prospect Ave- nue. The Commission noted concern for the placement of the homes on Lots 4, 5, and 6 relative to their visibility from adjacent sites and the community overall. Bill Siegel, 24905 La Loma Court, noted his appreciation for the Commissions concern relative to where the houses will be placed on the lots. Commissioner Noel proposed placing a one story hieght limit on Lots 5 and 6. Commissioner Jones explained that he believed it was better to maintain six lots rather than reducing the subdivision to five lots in order to keep the maximum developable area on the lots down. He noted that the best way to address the impact of develop- ment on these lots may be to impose a maximum elevation above sea level limit for structure hieghts. Commissioner Stutz expressed her concern for the irregular lot lines included in this proposal noting that reducing the number of lots to five would allow for more regular lot shapes. She also expressed concern about placing a single story hieght limit on this development, explaining that she did not believe that concept had been successful on the Middle Fork development. Ekern proposed that the Commission consider placing a maximum elevation limit on Lots 5 and 6 related to the elevation of the knoll and the elevation of the rise to the south of Lot 5 and specify where the 40 foot setback on these lots should be located to push the houses toward appropriate building sites. MOTION SECONDED AND PASSED: Motion by Commissioner Noel, seconded by Commissioner Jones to recommend that six lots are acceptable. AYES: Commissioners Carico, Comiso, Jones Noel and Pahl NOES: Chairman Emling and Commissioner Stutz. MOTION SECONDED AND PASSED: Motion by Commissioner Carico, seconded by Commissioner Jones and passed unanimously to condition Lot 6 to specify that the house run with the contour, that the 40 foot setback be measured from La Loma and that no structures be Permitted to broach the 580 contour elevation; condition Lot 5 that the 40 foot setback apply to the north property line and that no structure be allowed to broach the 590 contour; and that these conditions be included in the Planning and Zoning approvals in the form of a Development Agreement. MOTION SECONDED AND FAILED: Moved by Commissioner Pahl, seconded by Comiso that no structure on Lot 4 be permitted to broach the 595 contour. Motion failed due to vote. AYES: Commissioners Carico, Noel and Pahl NOES: Chairman Emling, Commissioners Comiso, Jones and Stutz kw MOTION SECONDED AND PASSED: Moved by Commissioner Pahl, seconded by Stutz that no structure on Lot 4 broach the 600 contour. AYES: Chairman Emling, COmmisioners Carico, Jones, Noel, Pahl and E Stutz. �r NOES: None ABSTAIN: Commissioner Comiso The Commission discussed the specific conditions of the Tentative Map and recommended some modifications of the conditions. MOTION SECONDED AND PASSED: Moved by Commissioner Noel, seconded by Commissioner Pahl and passed unanimously to recommend to the City Council that they certify the Negative Declaration with the mitigations as noted in the previous motions. MOTION SECONDED AND PASSED: Moved by Commissioner Noel, seconded by Commissioner Carico and passed unanimously to approve the Tentative Map as amended with the following clarifications of the conditions: 1. The sewer easement to be provided on Lot 4 will only be 20 feet wide. 2. Condition #10 was amended to state "Disposition of all wells shall be in accordance with... The public hearing was closed. ` G. NEW BUSINESS: ` There was no new business. H. OLD BUSINESS: 1. LANDS OF LOCONTE, FILE #TM 1-89, 28140 Story Hill Lane, APN: 182-52-008, Recommendation to the City Council on the relocation of a Conservation Easement. Ms. Ann Jamison noted that this request requires a finding by the Planning Commission that the proposed abandonment is in con- formance with the General Plan and recommendation to the City Council. Commissioner Jones expressed his concern that requiring relocation of the easement would establish a precedence for future applica- tions. MOTION SECONDED AND PASSED: Moved by Commissioner Carico, seconded by Commissioner Stutz to find abandonment in conformance with the General Plan and recommend approval of the relocation to he City Council. AYES: Chairman Emlipg, Commissioners Carico, Comiso, Noel, Pahl and Stutz NOES: None ABSTAIN: Commissioner Jones, noting he did not object to the aban- donment but was concerned about setting a precent requiring relocation. LW Jamison clarified after the Planning Commision meeting that she did not anticipate that a precedent would be set by requiring the relocation. She explained that the General Plan outlines parame- ters for areas to qualify as Conservation Easement such as heavy vegetative cover or stream or tributary locations. If the area no longer needed to be preserved for those attributes it would be possible to abandons it with no relocation requirement. Relocation was required in this case to accommodate Tentative Map approval conditions. I. ADJOURNMENT: There being no further business the meeting was adjourned at 12:00am. Respectfully submitted, Leslie Mullins Planning Technician J