Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout04/22/1992APPROVED `, Minutes of a Regular Meeting Town of Los Altos Hills PLANNING COMMISSION Council cc: Cas=. 22, 1992, 7:30 P.M. , 26379 Fremont Road 1. ROLL CALL AND PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE Chairman Noel called the Planning Commission meeting to order at 7:30 p.m. in the Council Chambers at Town Hall. Present: Chairman Noel and Commissioners Cheng, Pahl, Ellinger, Jones, Stutz Absent: Comiso Staff: Linda Niles, Town Planner; Joyce Reiter, Interim Planning Secretary 2. PRESENTATIONS FROM THE FLOOR kThere were no presentations from the floor. 3. CONSENT CALENDAR Public Hearing Items 4. PUBLIC HEARINGS 4.1 LANDS OF TAN, 26872 Almaden Court: A request for a Conditional Development permit for an Addition This item was continued from the meeting of April 8, 1992 for verification of maximum height and review of the surveys submitted. Linda Niles noted that the Engineer confirmed that the measurements were accurate, he corrected the drawings as shown on those submitted to the Commission. She also noted that the height will be close to the maximum allowed. 4 Ms. Niles stated that the applicant's representative had a question regarding Condition 5. Planning Commission Minutes APPROVED April 22, 1992 Page 2 Commissioner Jones questioned what happens if it fails the surveyor's certified height measurement? Ms. Niles also noted that it would then be necessary to stake the foundation at the grade, if this can't be accomplished at the 35' height, it will be necessary to change it. The Public Hearing was open. Dave Perng, Architect expressed concern regarding Condition 5. He noted that there was no need for landscaping to be added. The Public Hearing was closed. Commissioner Jones questioned whether or not the Staff would require submission of a formal plan for Condition 5. Ms. Niles noted that a formal plan would not be necessary and that Condition 5 would be left in for the purpose of review to decide whether or not it is necessary. She noted that we can leave it out at this stage on projects where we know it will not be necessary. But, it is also a standard condition that the Commission has chosen to be on the list. Ms. Niles noted that she had been reviewing the incoming projects where landscape plans were required to be submitted to verify whether the addition that was accomplished needed the landscaping for screening. She noted that she had checked the record to see if there were any questions or additional concerns regarding the landscaping and made a site visit to check the existing landscaping, and if there were no problems, she would not require them to make a formal submittal and would sign off the conditions as having been met. Commissioner Stutz commented that this is a very appropriate way to go providing the landscape plans are checked in the field before request of submittal of landscape plans. Commissioner Jones suggested that Condition 5 read different since it now reads as if the applicant has to submit a complete plan no matter what. He suggested it be changed to read: "Subject to staff review a landscape plan may be required and submitted to the file." MOTION SECONDED AND PASSED: Motion by Pahl, seconded by Noel and passed to approve the Site Development Permit for an Addition with modification to Condition 5. f AYES: Chairman Noel and Commissioners Cheng, Pahl, Olinger, Jones, Stutz �W NOES: None ABSENT: Comiso Planning Commission Minutes APPROVED April 22, 1992 Page 3 Chairman Noel noted that the application is approved and will be on the City Council Consent Calendar May 6, 1992. 4.2 LANDS OF TING, 13353 Rhoda Drive: A request for a Site Development Permit for an Addition, Decking Ms. Niles introduced this item noting that this particular site has significant steep slopes. It also has a stepped area at the center of the site where the project has already been constructed. Commissioner Jones noted that on the Staff Report the remaining development area should be 2590, and that there is a discrepancy on the plan where it reads: "Proposed is 7694 square feet of development area. He noted that it is a rather large discrepancy from 9816 listed on the Staff Report. He suggested that it should be redlined on the front page of the plan prior to submittal. The Public Hearing was opened. George Dai, representative for the Tings noted that the construction is not proposed to disturb any existing drainage. Ms. Niles noted that the condition is standard and allows the City Engineer to review the drainage and grading prior to issuance of a building permit as part of the Town's checks and balances. Chairman Noel noted that the Staff would like the opportunity to review this Mr. Dai noted that the ground floor is partially closed and unused in order to meet the floor area we propose to fill on the grade. He also noted that the fill will be imported from off site. Commissioner Stutz questioned whether or not the applicant plans to continue to use this area as storage area, or will it be totally filled with dirt? Mr. Dai noted that he proposed to fill this area at least 2 feet higher, therefore, it will not be used for storage area. He also noted that the existing retaining wall prevents water from entering and causing a burden to the existing structure. Commissioner Pahl expressed concern regarding a risk of possible earthquake damage due to the conditions of the new construction. Dot Schreiner noted that the pathway on Rhoda Drive is barely visible due to being overgrown. She would like to see it reconstructed by the applicant. Mr. Dai agreed and also noted that Condition 7 is o.k. Ms. Niles noted that the Water District has reviewed the project and is sending the Town of Los Altos Hills a letter. She would like to confirm the Town's receipt of Planning Commission Minutes APPROVED April 22, 1992 Page 4 4 the letter from them before the issuance of a Building Permit on the proposed project and that is why the condition is recommended. Mr. Dai confirmed he had received the letter from the Water District. Commissioner Jones suggested we add to Condition 6: "To clear and renovate the pathway along Rhoda Drive, along the applicant's property frontage." Ms. Niles noted that she would work with Mr. Dai on this. The Public Hearing was closed. Commissioner Ettinger expressed concern regarding a seismic hazard of building in this area under the structure. He suggested not approaching construction in this area since it is not considered necessary. Ms. Niles noted that both Geo. reports have been reviewed by Cotton and they have indicated that they are aware that the additions that are proposed by the applicant would need to be reviewed for conformance. Also the project Geotechnical Consultant should provide a recommendation for the retaining wall back drains and preparation of areas to receive the fill and placement of the fill. The conditions and the recommendations for approval are that all the Cotton mitigations be followed. The City Engineer will review those to determine whether or not they meet the conditions requested by Cotton. Chairman Noel questioned whether or not it will be followed by the Staff and the Building Inspector. Commissioner Ellinger noted that the applicant proposed to fill the under floor area to satisfy the technical provisions of the statute. He suggested that it needs to be filled only to the extent that it brings it into compliance with floor area requirements. He noted that he would encourage that the fill consist of the lightest material possible and only the amount needed for compliance with Town Codes. Commissioner Pahl suggested that the staff convey to the City Engineer the concerns that have been expressed. Commissioner Jones suggested that the Commission leave those two items as recommendations to the Staff to work through. Commissioner Pahl noted that the Staff will suggest all of those recommendations f to Cotton. Planning Commission Minutes APPROVED April 22, 1992 Page 5 Ms. Niles indicated that she had understood the Planning Commission direction for filling the under floor area with the lightest material and only the amount needed to satisfy the numbers. The Public Hearing was closed. MOTION SECONDED AND PASSED: Motion by Ellinger, seconded by Stutz and passed for approval of a Site Development Permit for an Addition and Decking with deletion of Condition 2, modifications to Condition 6 as stated by the Commission, and Staff recommendations to the City Engineer. AYES: Chairman Noel and Commissioners Cheng, Pahl, Ellinger, Jones, Stutz NOES: None ABSENT: Comiso 5. NEW BUSINESS No new business. 6. OLD BUSINESS ( No old business. 7. APPROVAL OF THE MEETING MINUTES OF APRIL 8, 1992 Commissioner Pahl requested the Meeting Minutes be removed from the Consent Calendar and left at Item 7. Also amend Page 4, Item 8.1 to read: "The method of compensation of the Planning Commissioners." Commissioner Ellinger wished to amend the minutes on Page 2, paragraph 4; change to read: "Commissioner Ellinger scaled the heights...". MOTION SECONDED AND PASSED: Motion by Pahl, seconded by Ellinger and passed to approve the minutes with the above amendments. AYES: Chairman Noel and Commissioners Cheng, Pahl, Ellinger, Jones, Stutz NOES: None ABSENT: Comiso 8. COMMISSIONERS' COMMENTS: Commissioner Stutz noted that she would like to see listed on the Agenda a Commission Comments item. First of all I would like to commend the Town crew and particularly the engineer on the terrific job they are doing on the pathway on Taaffe Road. I think it is outstanding. We have always had a very narrow piece to work on there. They Planning Commission Minutes APPROVED April 22, 1992 Page 6 4 need to be commended once in awhile instead of always complaining about the work that's being done. Secondly, Mrs. Morrison had made a comment under her breath as to why she had come to hear the Ting item at this meeting. She noted that they had put up a 12' fence before that she had complained about. If there is a 12' fence on the Ting property, then it should be removed because we do have a law against that and most neighbors don't want a 12' fence. Commissioner Ettinger: First, a procedural matter. If I notice something that needs to be maintained by the Town do I need to step out of this roll and bring it up as a public complaint? This morning some neighbors who are new at Matadero Creek addressed to me a problem regarding the pathway. Also others have asked me about the pathway. It is supposed to circle the entire area. You can't even pass through it even with big dogs towing you. If you are trying to find the pathway, it's between Country Way and Matadero, in other words behind Stan Davis' place before he moved. My question is more a procedural one now that I've made that parenthetical comment about that pathway. Do I need to step out there and file a complaint? Ms. Niles noted that he did not and that she would address the complaint and have L a response back to him. Commissioner Stutz suggested the easiest way to get any work done is to come in and fill out a slip that says: "Maintenance needed on pathway...... Theoretically, the maintenance crew goes through the maintenance requests every month or two. It's very easy to mention it to the staff and very easy for it to be lost between the cracks. I will say that this year the Pathway Committee did not oversee the spraying to the extent that they should. We have a lot of places in town that need spraying. Ms. Niles noted that now that she's aware that there is a sheet to fill out, she doesn't mind taking this item back and filling out the sheet for Commissioner Ellinger. Commissioner Ellinger: The second question concerns a very serious injury involving a bicyclist and a driver of a car. I get called in on these things periodically and I know that all of Page Mill is not our jurisdiction, but the work that needs to be done along Page Mill is not unlike the pathway maintenance in the sense of trimming back the brush that overhangs on the road. There was a helicopter evacuation that was very serious. There are some blind corners and there are areas of concern. Page Mill has become a major bicycle thoroughfare, all the way up to the top of Moody. If you could make whatever sort of comments that need to be made to the ( other jurisdictions involved in that area which I know include Palo Alto. I would appreciate it from a safety point of view. I think at the top end there's going to be a Planning Commission Minutes APPROVED April 22, 1992 Page 7 4 bigger problem in San Mateo County. I have trimmed the brush at the corner of Matadero just because of this being a blind intersection. Commissioner Stutz noted that this item should be brought to the attention of the Safety Committee. 8. REPORT FROM THE CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF APRIL 15, 1992 Linda Niles gave a brief report. 9. ADTOURNMENT MOTION SECONDED AND PASSED: Motion by Pahl, seconded by Ellinger and passed by consensus to adjourn the meeting at 8:25 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Joyce Reiter Interim Planning Secretary M