Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout05/22/1991APPROVED PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING TOWN OF LOS ALTOS HILLS 26379 FREMONT ROAD LOS ALTOS HILLS, CALIFORNIA WEDNESDAY, MAY 22ND, 1991 cc: Cassettes #9-91(1),9-91(2) 1. ROLL CALL AND PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE Present: Vice Chairman Noel and Commissioners Carico, Comiso, Ellinger, Pahl Absent: Chairman Jones and Commissioner Stutz Staff: Bill Ekern, Director of Public Works; Cynthia Richardson, Planning Consultant; Laura Johnson, Planning Secretary 2. PRESENTATIONS FROM THE FLOOR There were no presentations from the floor. 3. CONSENT CALENDAR MOTION SECONDED AND PASSED: Motion by Pahl, seconded by Comiso and passed by consensus to approve the consent calendar, specifically: 3.1 LANDS OF LAUB, 27210 Fremont Road: Acceptance of an application for a tentative subdivision map. 4. PUBLIC HEARINGS 4.1 LANDS OF CHIANG, 26288 W. Fremont Road: A request for a site Development permit for a secondary dwelling unit. Cynthia Richardson introduced this item, noting the conformance of the second unit to the provisions of the Second Unit Ordinance and Staff's recommendation of approval subject to the conditions listed in the Staff Report. Commissioner Pahl referred to Staff Recommended Condition #7, noting he felt it was not necessary to have setbacks verified by a surveyor when construction is not proximate to the setbacks, as in this project, because of the high costs involved. He also noted Condition #6 as written was confusing, requesting it be rewritten for clarification. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES APPROVED May 22nd, 1991 Page 2 The Public Hearing was opened. Dennis Chiang, applicant, noted in response to a question from Commissioner Pahl that he felt Staff Recommended Condition #7 requiring setback verification was not necessary. He clarified, in regard to Condition #6, that the proposed development was to occur within an existing fence, and the trees are beyond the fence. Bill Ekern clarified that verification of setback location was a standard condition as the drawings are not signed by an engineer as to the location of the residence. He clarified that the costs of having an engineer certify the plans are comparable to verification in the field. The Public Hearing was closed. MOTION SECONDED AND PASSED: Motion by Carico, seconded by Comiso and passed to approve the Site Development permit with Staff Recommended Conditions 1 - 7. AYES: Vice Chairman Noel and Commissioners Carico, Comiso, Ellinger, NOES: Commissioner Pahl ABSENT: Chairman Jones and Commissioner Stutz 4.2 LANDS OF JANAC, 24220 Summerhill Avenue: A request for a Site Development permit for Grading and Retaining Walls Bill Ekern introduced this item, noting the applicant's concerns regarding the structural integrity of the basement wall subsequent to the October 1989 earthquake were the basis for the proposed project. The applicant and engineers met with Staff to discuss the project several time. Staff has determined that while the project entails a considerable amount of grading, it is for the protection of the residence and therefore approval is recommended subject to mitigation with landscaping and the conditions outlined in the Staff Report. The Public Hearing was opened. Jim Walsh, project civil engineer, noted the applicant's agreement with the Staff Report, introducing the Janacs, Don Peterson - structural engineer, and Ed Kwan - landscape architect. He noted the Janacs had spoken with the adjacent neighbors, receiving verbal acceptance of the proposed project, as well as written approval from Mr. Wilkinson. Bob Worcester, 24221 Hillview Drive, noted he reviewed the plans and thought the ` project looked great. He noted concern with heavy equipment accessing the `r property. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES APPROVED May 22nd, 1991 Page 3 Mr. Ekern clarified that grading to the rear of the property will not change. All heavy equipment will access the property via the front drive as there is no other means of access. Dot Schreiner, 14301 Saddle Mountain Drive, Pathways Chair, noted the Committee requested a Type II -B path in the road right-of-way. The Committee asked for the fence in the road right-of-way to be moved back to the setback line, or location of the path inside the fence. The Janacs noted they had no objection to the request. Mr. Janac noted they wished to retain the soil from cut on site to avoid heavy trucks using Summerhill Avenue to haul the excess away. In response to a question from Commissioner Carico, Bill Ekern noted there was no plan for distributing excess dirt on the property. Of concern is the possible use of fill to change the contours toward the front of the property. Any fill would be required to be done under the direction of a soils engineer. Mr. Walsh suggested the possibility of submitting a grading plan for Staff level review, noting they just didn't have a plan at this time but there was room on the site for placement of fill. He clarified that there would be about 840 cubic yards of `, excess soil. The Public Hearing was closed. MOTION SECONDED AND PASSED: Motion by Comiso, seconded by Carico and passed to approve the Site Development permit with Staff Recommended Conditions 1 - 6, and the following conditions: 7. A Type II -B pathway shall be constructed in the road right-of-way 8. Fence shall be moved to the reference line. 9. Excess dirt from grading shall be removed from site or a grading plan submitted for the review and approval of Staff engineering use of dirt on site. AYES: Vice Chairman Noel and Commissioners Carico, Comiso, Ellinger, Pahl NOES: None ABSENT: Chairman Jones and Commissioner Stutz PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES APPROVED May 22nd, 1991 Page 4 4.3 LANDS OF SHOCKLEY, 27781 Edgerton Road: A request for a Site Development permit for a New Residence and Swimming Pool Cynthia Richardson introduced this item, outlining the quantitative information. She noted the design generally follows the natural contours of the site, and requires minimal grading. Commissioner Pahl noted concern with the wording of Staff Recommended Condition #8, requiring replacement and protection of trees. Commissioner Ellinger noted concern with the stability of the soil and subsurface drainage. The Public Hearing was opened. David Lin, 27764 Edgerton Road, noted concern that if on-site water is not treated properly it will flow into his house, and that there is not much space for a pool on the site, and encouraged preservation of existing Oak trees. Kenneth Wright, 27791 Edgerton Road, referred to his letter to the Town regarding the proposed development. He noted soil in the area is very unstable. There is an underground stream that runs continuously, and homes above his have had serious foundation damage because of the water. He noted a branch off the main stream feeds under his house, and expressed concern that grading may direct the main stream of water onto his property. Commissioner Pahl clarified that one of the standard Conditions of Approval disallows runoff from being directed to any one place, and that the drainage plan for the proposed development must eliminate any increase in intensity of flow of water off site. Bill Ekern noted the instability of soil and landslides in this area, and the importance of keeping water from destabilizing the area. The applicant proposes to build structures, acceptable to Staff to get the water past the unstable areas, and does have permits from the Department of Fish and Game to do work near the creek. Putting the driveways and downspouts into a system that is going into the creek isn't necessary, however. Commissioner Ettinger questioned whether any tests had been undertaken to verify whether existing leachfields drain into the subsurface aquifer. Mr. Wright noted he didn't know of any tests. i Ms. Richardson noted the proposed project was approved by the Santa Clara County Health Department. Mr. Ekern clarified that there was no aquifer but groundwater PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES APPROVED May 22nd, 1991 Page 5 seepage, and it is the Health Department's obligation to make a field survey of the area. Mr. Wright noted concerns with foundation damage and the direction of effluence onto his property associated with the leachfield and existing groundwater. Richard Shockley, 12006 Moody Springs Court, applicant, noted he had been working with the property for approximately six years. He noted the Health Department informed him of a neighbor's concerns with underground water. Mr. Shockley noted that the original percolation tests were run on the property in the late 70's, in a very wet year. The Health Department requested trenching and three trenches 15 feet deep were dug on the site in February and March of 1991 and no evidence of recent water was found. The Health Department obtained samples at that time. In response to a question from Commissioner Carico, Mr. Shockley clarified that Cotton's office indicated that as work proceeds, they would like to review the plans, however everything to this point is acceptable to them. He noted that a system was engineered to stabilize the part of the hill that does have problems, addressing a situation he felt was created with the construction of a neighboring tennis court. Commissioner Carico noted that she thought there had been consideration of placing the whole area in a conservation easement. Cheryl Americh, 27801 Edgerton Road, noted concern with water on the site. She also noted concern for the Coombs, that water would drain underneath their house. She suggested there was perhaps a reason why a house wasn't built on the site when Edgerton was originally developed. Philip Choong, 27769 Edgerton Road, noted his property has been in a dispute for four years with Mr. Shockley. He noted problems with surface water and an adjacent neighbor's leachfield. He explained the water appears to have bacteria, and appears to be coming from the leachfield. He noted that because of the water, his tennis court never settled properly. Mr. Choong expressed concern with the impact of development on the landslides in the area. In response to a question from Commissioner Comiso, Mr. Choong noted the water was tested in 1986 and he had a report issued in 1987. Mr. Shockley wished to clarify that Mr. Choong was talking about his own and his neighbor's property, not the subject property. He noted that PSC Associates did groundwater testing on the subject property in 1989 and determined that the bacteria in the water is the kind that is found naturally. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES APPROVED May 22nd, 1991 Page 6 In response to a question from Commissioner Ellinger, Mr. Shockley noted the PSC Associates test had not been submitted to the Health Department. They surmised the water was surface water, and it was part of the lawsuit with the Lands of Choong as the Choong property's drainage lines drain onto the subject property. He noted they looked into connection to sewer but the closest sewer was about 700 yards away. Commissioner Ellinger asked Mr. Shockley's consideration of a condition of approval that verification is obtained from the Health Department that there is no lateral contamination from the leachfield to any underground water. Mr. Shockley responded that it may be an issue of trying to get a guarantee from the Health Department that they may not be willing to give to anyone. In response to a question from Vice Chairman Noel, Mr. Shockley noted he had no objections to the Staff Recommended Conditions. The Public Hearing was closed. In response to a question from Commissioner Carico, Bill Ekern clarified that Edgerton Road purchased sewer capacity but there are no current plans to build a sewer. `, In response to a question from Commissioner Comiso, Mr. Ekern noted the Health Department evaluates percolation rates and whether leachfield design falls within Town requirements, not the direction the leachate goes. Mr. Shockley's reports indicate no groundwater was encountered in the borings. Mr. Ekern noted there is undoubtedly surface runoff and his experience has been that there are pockets of underground springs, most of the water coming from lack of maintenance of septic drainfields or mishandling of storm drainage. Commissioner Carico suggested both Mr. Choong's report of 1987 and Mr. Shockley's report of 1989 be submitted to Staff for review. Commissioner Ellinger clarified that his concern was with contamination, and not the quantity of water. He suggested the Health Department run lateral transit tests. If in light of information provided they determine the tests are not necessary, that is acceptable. The aquifer can continue to flow, but the Shockleys and neighbors will know whether it is safe. MOTION SECONDED AND PASSED: Motion by Pahl, seconded by Ellinger and passed to approve the Site Development permit with Staff Recommended Conditions 1 - 7, and 9, and the following conditions: 8. Six trees are proposed to be removed from the site. The trees are to be replaced with trees of a size no less than 24" box if larger, or equal to the size of the trees PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES APPROVED May 22nd, 1991 Page 7 which are removed, and if any other trees are damaged beyond repair or destroyed, they shall be replaced. Fencing at the dripline is required during construction. No equipment or debris shall be stored beneath the dripline. 10. Santa Clara County Health Department shall provide certification that due diligence has been exercised in determining whether any lateral water transit is present on the site and will not pose a health hazard to the stage where it affects adjacent properties. Mr. Shockley and Mr. Chang shall submit their respective reports of 1989 and 1987 to Staff to be forwarded to the Santa Clara County Health Department for review. AYES: Vice Chairman Noel and Commissioners Carico, Comiso, Ellinger, Pahl NOES: None ABSENT: Chairman Jones and Commissioner Stutz The Planning Commission took a brief intermission. 4.4 LANDS OF FINN, 12000 Finn Lane: A request for a Site Development permit for a Tennis Court, Swimming Pool, and Cabana Bill Ekern introduced this item, clarifying that the property address is 12002 Finn �W Lane. He noted Staff's recommendation of approval of the cabana, but cited concern with the amount of fill proposed to elevate it and the pool. He noted Staff recommended denial of the pool and tennis court because the volume of fill for this development is to reshape the lot, and they could be re -oriented to lay with the contours lessening the impact of grading. The tennis court is in the flattest part of the lot and the majority of grading for it is associated with the 6 foot berm around its perimeter. He noted eliminating artificial elevation of the cabana and pool would provide greater flexibility in laying out the site. Commissioner Pahl noted Mr. Finn had indicated that lot #2 may at some date be sold off as a separate parcel. Lot #2's tennis court looks like it is a perfect siting for a proposed house. He also noted the site has been subject to a great deal of re - contouring. Mr. Ekern clarified that the cut material on the site is there from the subdivision. It is not permitted on the lot as a lot configuration but this permit would validate its use on the site. Rotating the court to run parallel to the contours was not critical but would limit the volume of grading and may lower the profile of the court. Lowering the cabana and the pool down to grade and re -orienting to run on contours, as the Town ordinances suggest, seems like more reasonable land use. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES APPROVED May 22nd, 1991 Page 8 Commissioner Pahl referred to the tennis court and questioned whether it would be better to have a berm and a smaller fence so the court doesn't loom over the subdivision. Mr. Ekern noted the mitigation potential of the berm. He noted a tennis court elevation of 562, pad elevation for the cabana of elevation 562 - 563, and the pool turned parallel at elevation 566 were reasonable. The Public Hearing was opened. Steven Finn, 12000 Finn Lane, applicant, noted the direction of the tennis court is important in that the sun is a big factor and they would like to orient the tennis court North-South. He also noted his interest in keeping the excess soil within the subdivision. They had cut from lot #1 and planned to use it on lot #2 to avoid exporting. He noted willingness to do whatever necessary with drainage on the site. And, he noted he liked the proposed berm along the perimeter of the tennis court so the court is not visible from the street. In response to a question from Commissioner Pahl, Mr. Finn noted he was interested in compromising regarding the height of the cabana and pool, suggesting perhaps reduction of the fill by about three feet. Commissioner Ellinger referred to the orientation of the tennis court. `. Ken Schoppet, project landscape architect, noted that orienting the court more North-South would infringe on the swimming pool. Mr. Finn explained that his intention was to bring lots #1 and #2 back to what existed at the turn of the century. One reason for the orientation of the pool was to have it resemble a reflecting pond characteristic of houses of the period. The Public Hearing was closed. In response to a question from Commissioner Pahl, Mr. Finn noted he had no problems with the Staff Recommended Conditions. MOTION SECONDED AND PASSED: Motion by Pahl, seconded by Ellinger and passed to approve the Site Development permit with Staff Recommended Conditions 1 - 7, and with the following conditions: 8. As proposed in the plans dated April 12, 1991, pool shall be reduced to elevation 563' 6" and cabana to 564'8". 9. Applicant understands that approval of this application is specifically disapproved as to any fence within the reference line and a design shall be `� submitted for the review and approval of Staff showing the fence at or behind i W the reference line. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES APPIQOVED May 22nd, 1991 Page 9 V 10. A landscape planting plan shall be submitted after framing and prior to final building inspection for the review and approval of the Planning Commission acting as the Site Development Authority. AYES: Vice Chairman Noel and Commissioners Comiso, Ettinger, Pahl NOES: Commissioner Carico ABSENT: Chairman Jones and Commissioner Stutz Commissioner Carico noted in reference to her 'no' vote that Staff tried to guide the applicant to not have as massive a level of development on the property. MOTION SECONDED AND PASSED: Motion by Ellinger, seconded by Comiso and passed to reconsider the Conditions of Approval for Item 4.1, LANDS OF CHIANG. AYES: Vice Chairman Noel and Commissioners Carico, Comiso, Ellinger NOES: None ABSENT: Chairman Jones and Commissioner Stutz ABSTAIN: Commissioner Pahl The Commission discussed Condition #7, requiring verification of setback lines and Condition #6, requiring protection and replacement of trees. Commissioner Carico noted she could not support deletion of Condition #7 because if applicants don't have up to date information to put on a map, this is a requirement they should fulfill. Bill Ekern clarified that if the Commission is comfortable that the existing house precludes this addition from going into the setback, then there is no need for the condition. MOTION SECONDED AND PASSED: Motion by Ellinger, seconded by Pahl and passed to delete Condition #7 and approve the following Condition #6: 6. No trees are to be removed from the site, and if any are damaged beyond repair or destroyed they shall be replaced in kind with trees of a size no less than 24" box if larger, or equal to the size of the trees removed. Fencing at the dripline is required during construction. No equipment or debris shall be stored beneath the dripline. AYES: Vice Chairman Noel and Commissioners Comiso, Ellinger, Pahl NOES: Commissioner Carico ABSENT: Chairman Jones and Commissioner Stutz PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES APPROVED May 22nd, 1991 Page 10 4.5 An ordinance of the Town of Los Altos Hills amending definition of setbacks to exclude eaves Bill Ekern introduced this item, noting that because the setbacks are measured to the eaves, people often remove them from the design of a structure. Most cities measure the setback to the exterior building wall. Commissioner Pahl noted concern that the ordinance is open ended, as cantilevering of eaves could present problems. He noted eaves help create a horizontal appearance, cast shadows, and break up the vertical nature of the house. He noted the City of Los Altos allows the eaves to encroach four feet into the setback. The Commission discussed allowing eaves to encroach five feet into the setback. In response to a question from Commissioner Comiso, Commissioner Pahl noted that the City of Los Altos allows bay windows to encroach 18 inches into the setback provided the window doesn't adhere to the eaves or foundation of the structure. MOTIONS SECONDED AND PASSED: Motion by Pahl, seconded by Comiso and passed by consensus to continue the Public Hearing to allow for further research �W regarding bay windows. 4.6 An ordinance of the Town of Los Altos Hills amending Chapter 2 (Site Development) of Title 10 (Zoning and Site Development) to clarify Site Development review of residences Bill Ekern introduced this item, noting that if a second unit is to be built, applicants are required to obtain a Site Development permit. However, if there is an existing structure, there is no mechanism to bring it in for Site Development review. The proposed amendment also requires a variance for non -conforming structures. The Public Hearing was opened. No one wishing to speak, the Public Hearing was closed. Commissioner Pahl noted that for approval of a variance, as proposed in the ordinance amendment, it is necessary to show a unique situation exists. The standards for a Conditional Development Permit are far less onerous than making the findings for a variance and there is greater flexibility considering the needs of the applicant and the Town. The Commission discussed requirement of a Variance and requirement of a CDP PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES APPROVED May 22nd, 1991 Page 11 MOTION SECONDED AND PASSED: Motion by CariCo, seconded by Pahl and passed to recommend approval of the ordinance amendment and to request consideration of requirement of a CDP rather than a Variance. AYES: Vice Chairman Noel and Commissioners Carico, Comiso, Ettinger, Pahl NOES: None ABSENT: Chairman Jones and Commissioner Stutz Commissioner Carico wished to clarify that she did not intend to vote in favor of the motion, specifically the requested consideration of requirement of a Conditional Development Permit rather than a Variance. 5. NEW BUSINESS 5.1 Planning Commission Meeting Schedule Bill Ekern explained that the City Council would not be holding meetings during the month of August, noting the Council has been considering all Planning Commission public hearings on their consent calendar. ` Commissioner Pahl suggested asking Council what course of action they preferred the Commission take, possibly if a memo outlining what transpired was acceptable. 6. OLD BUSINESS Bill Ekern noted that Staff preferred commissioners call prior to a meeting if they have questions regarding reports from Staff or consultants to allow Staff an opportunity to identify their logic. He noted the importance of a good working relationship. Commissioner Pahl noted the "runway" lights on Simon Lane were on again. Mr. Ekern responded that he would write a letter to the property owner. Commissioner Ellinger noted residents' entry lights on Matadero Creek Lane were turned on. Staff indicated they would advise the residents of lighting ordinances. 7. APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES OF MAY 8TH 1991 MOTION SECONDED AND PASSED: Motion by Pahl, seconded by Carico, and passed by consensus, with Commissioners Pahl and Ellinger abstaining, to approve the minutes of May 8th, 1991. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES APPROVED May 22nd, 1991 Page 12 ~ 8. REPORT FROM THE CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF MAY 15TH, 1991 Commissioner Comiso asked to give the report at the following Planning Commission meeting. Bill Ekern noted the City Council discussed the Yard Waste Recycling Center. He also noted Council voted to hold a public hearing for the LANDS OF OWEN on Manuella Road, approved at the Planning Commission meeting of May 8th, 1991. He also noted the Planning Commission denial of the LANDS OF CHOO was a appealed by the applicants for a City Council public hearing. 9. REPORT FROM THE SITE DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE MEETING OF MAY 14TH, 1991 Bill Ekern reported two items were reviewed and approved: Ng - Sport Court and Landscaping. No additional plantings were required; however any perimeter screening vegetation removed was required to be replaced. Nguyen - landscaping. Eleven trees along Elena Road, the rebuilding of the pathway, and trees along the noise berm were required. 10. ADTOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned by consensus at 10:30 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Laura Johnson Planning Secretary