Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout07/22/1992APPROVED Minutes of a Regular Meeting `' Town of Los Altos Hills PLANNING COMMISSION SPECIAL MEETING, July 22 1992, 6:30 P.M. ON PROJECT SITE LOCATED AT, 27840 SADDLE oURT 1. ROLL CALL 2. ADJOURNED PUBLIC HEARING 2.1 LANDS OF LOHR, 24048 Oak Knoll Circle: A request for a Site Development Permit for a New Residence The Planning Commission and the neighborhood met on the site at 6:45 p.m. 3 A DJOUEZIMENrr To be reconvened at the Regular Meeting at Council Chambers at 730 p.m REGULAR MEETING, July 22,1992,7:30 p.m. Council Chambers 26379 Fremont Road Draft cc: Cassettes #13 (2) 1. ROLL CALL AND PT EDGE OF ALLEGIANCE Chairman Pahl called the Planning Commission meeting to order at 7:30 p.m. in the Council Chambers at Town Hall. Present: Chairman Pahl and Commissioners Cheng, Comiso, Schreiner, & Stutz Absent: Commissioners Ellinger & Simmu Staff: Linda Niles, Town Planner; Jeff Peterson, City Engineer; Land Lonberger, Planning Secretary. 2. PRESENTATIONS FROM THE FLOOR 2.1 Bob Stutz, 25310 Elena Road; the Pathway Committee is asking the Chairman to appoint a representative from the Planning Commission to the V Pathway Committee. This issue will be taken up under NEW BUSINESS, 5.2. Planning Commission Minutes July 22, 1992 Page 2 APPROVED 4 2.2 Special presentation to former Chairman Clyde Noel and former Commissioner Dick Jones for their outstanding contributions. Commissioner Comiso wanted to recognize both for their outstanding contribution to the Town of Los Altos Hills. Chairman Pahl stated the Town owes a deep sense of gratitude to both of these individuals. 2.3 Special request to move item 5.1 forward. Peter Duxbury, Architect for Mr. and Mrs. Mehrlich is requesting a Planning Commission meeting in August due to urgency in construction start date.. MOTION PASSED BY CONSENSUS: Planning Commission agreed to special meeting on Thursday, August 27, 1992 at 7:30 p.m. 3. CONSENT CALENDAR None 4.1 LANDS OF LOHR, 24048 Oak Knoll Circle, request for site development permit for a new residence (Lot 11). (Continued from 6:30 p.m. Special Meeting.) Ms. Niles introduced this item. The proposal is for the construction of a new one story single family dwelling unit on an existing 1.59 acre lot which is located in the mid-section of the McCullouch subdivision. The average slope of the lot is 22.0% with a Lot Unit Factor of 1.18. The lot is located on one of the higher areas of the subdivision but below the highest hilltop. Restrictions were placed on several of the lots through the subdivision process relating to noise mitigation, height limits, size limits, conservation easements, siting limits, and restrictions on further subdivision of any of the new lots. The site is very visible from the surrounding properties and across the valleys and freeway to the north, south, and east. Recommend approval of requested site development permit as submitted, subject to the conditions of approval in staff report. Commissioner Schreiner asked why the difference in MDA between staff report and map. Ms. Niles explained that when we take an application we require the applicant to put the MDA and MFA on the face of the map. When the consultant does the measuring the figures are changed slightly in almost all cases. Correct figures are on the staff report. Planning Commission Minutes July 22, 1992 Page 3 OPEN PUBLIC HEARING APPROVED Steve Lohr, J. Lohr Properties, 586 Lagunita Drive, Stanford, mentioned that this is the first home in the subdivision and it will be a model of the level of quality they build to. It is a single story to maintain views. Commissioner Schreiner asked Mr. Lohr if he thought breaking up the garage and master bedroom and moving it further down the slope would help break up the bulk and maybe also lowering the roof. Mr. Lohr stated had looked at several different proposals for breaking up the master bedroom and garage from the house, however, all infringed on the optimum sightings from the living room as well as some of the secondary bedrooms. The concern was for the views. Chairman Pahl brought up the 6" eaves for shadowing effect. He asked Mr. Lohr if he considered extending the eaves to 18" or 24". CLOSE PUBLIC HEARING Commissioner Schreiner suggested removing condition 9 as the pathway is already in. Her main concern was that the property is being maxed out and feels the builder should leave some MDA. She would like to ask of the Commission if they do not want to reduce this in any way, to have some sort of deed restriction so that the prospective buyers knows that all the development and floor area has been taken. The deed restriction will alert them immediately. MOTION SECONDED AND PASSED: Motion by Schreiner and seconded by Cheng requiring deed restriction alerting prospective buyers of the maximum MDA and MFA, condition 9 to be modified to "maintain", not construct, as pathway is already in and eaves be increased to 18" to 20" as set by applicant. AYES: Chairman Pahl, Commissioners Cheng, Comiso, Schreiner & Stutz NOES: None ABSENT: Commissioners Ellinger & Simmu This item will appear on the City Council Consent Calendar August 19. 4.2 Lands of Hoover, #335 -91 -TM, proposed Negative Declaration, Negative Declaration and Tentative Parcel Map for Lands of Hoover for a proposed subdivision on an existing 2.75 acre parcel into 2 lots located at 13820 La Paloma Road (Assessor Parcel No. 175-23-002). Planning Commission Minutes July 22, 1992 Page 4 APPROVED 4 Ms. Niles introduced this item stating the applicant is requesting that the Town approve a Tentative Parcel Map to subdivide a 2.75 (gross acreage) parcel into two lots. This parcel has an average slope of 10% and a Lot Unit Factor (LUF) of 2.69. The primary concerns of the staff are adequate access to the properties off of the common private right-of-way accessing from La Paloma Road, maintaining the openness along La Paloma, and adequate improvements to and disposition of the existing drainage course on site. Commissioner Schreiner would like an explanation of proposed creek channel improvements. Commissioner Stutz would like a check on whether improvements to Barron Creek upstream are adequate for a 100 year storm. She does not think we need to ask for 100 year improvements and its not in keeping with what the Town has done in the past. Chairman Pahl stated this is a flood plain. Jeff Peterson suggested asking applicant to do calculations and to show limits of flood plain on the map so the Commission can see where the development of lot 1 could be accomplished. OPEN PUBLIC HEARING Susan Roberts, Giuliani & Kull, looked at conditions 1-27 and agreed with them except she would like an opportunity to look at 100 year design as suggested by Jeff Peterson. She would like #13 wording to reflect "work with staff'. Height and setback requirements are okay. Commissioner Schreiner suggested Condition 24 to read "23' and one story". Ida Mary Hoover stated she had no objection to a one story house and the creek has not been a problem for them in 30 years. They were always able to go down their driveway. CLOSE PUBLIC HEARING Commissioner Schreiner mentioned that there has been a great deal of develop- ment and pavement on La Paloma and she is reluctant not to ask for improvements to accommodate for 100 year storm because of all the development, however, she does not want a huge creek channel 7rimprovement either.. M Planning Commission Minutes APPROVED July 22, 1992 Page 5 Commissioner Comiso feels Commission needs to plan now so as not to effect next property and does not want a flood channel and rip rap. Suggested deed restriction due to flood plain. Chairman Pahl is worried that La Paloma will look like Arastradero with all the same setbacks and this is not what Los Altos Hill is about. We need some variation. He suggested varying height and setback on some of the La Paloma houses and lots. Commissioner Stutz offered that maybe 120' would be better because it can still have 30' rear setback. She was also concerned that this is not a buildable lot due to flood plain. She would like more analysis of flood plain before Commission can approve the lots and then creek improvements. MOTION SECONDED AND PASSED: Motion by Comiso, seconded by Stutz to approve Negative Declaration. AYES: Chairman Pahl, Commissioners Cheng, Comiso, Schreiner & Stutz NOES: None ABSENT: Commissioners Ellinger & Sinunu MOTION SECONDED AND PASSED: Motion by Stutz and seconded by Comiso to continue hearing to gather information on flood plain. This will be first item on the Planning Commission agenda for September 23, 1992 Request for a five minute break at 9:40 p.m. 4.3 Lands of Eshner/Wong, Altamont Road and Altamont Lane, Environmental Impact Report, and preliminary review of tentative subdivision map. Ms. Niles introduced this item with two recommendations: 1. Review and make comments on and take public comments on the submitted Environmental Impact Report; and 2. Review and comment on the Tentative Subdivision Map and continue the map review to the meeting of September 9th to allow the applicant to return with additional information and modifications as requested by the Planning Commission (as discussed in staff report), and to allow staff to return with recommended conditions of approval for the proposed map. Ms. Niles stated that when the EIR review began the applicant had proposed a six lot subdivision. The EIR general discussion is based on the six lot subdivision that was Planning Commission Minutes APPROVED July 22, 1992 Page 6 tar submitted and there were five alternatives that were reviewed within the EIR and impacts on those were discussed as well. Through the EIR process it was apparent to the applicant that the site might better be designed for five lots and the applicant submitted their tentative subdivision map as a five lot map. The map the Commission will be reviewing is most like alternative 5a that is discussed in the EIR. It is suggested that the Commission at this time make comments on the EIR and those comments will be reviewed and included in and responded to in the final EIR that will be put together after the 45 day review period has expired which will be August 7th. The final EIR will then go to the City Council for final certification. The areas addressed in the EIR were the land use, aesthetics, transportation /circulation, hydrology, biology, alternatives and long term implications of the project. Chairman Pahl stated that the Commission is not being requested to take a vote to accept or recommend acceptance of the EIR. Ms. Niles added that page 6 of the Staff Report lists suggested items to cover, 1 through 11 and after we accept comments on the EIR she will make a short presentation on the map before getting into the map discussion. Chairman Pahl asked to incorporate the two discussions as one since the subdivision and EIR flow together. He felt it was difficult to divide the EIR from the @ tentative map just because so much of the two interrelate. Commissioner Comiso noted that there needed to be a correction to the EIR, page 90, where it refers to 6 lots rather than 5 lots. Chairman Pahl asked prospective speakers that if they are in agreement with a prior speaker to please note, as we do not need to hear entire comment again. OPEN PUBLIC HEARING Jim Jackson, 10455 Torre Avenue, Cupertino, Attorney for Hilda Wong. He intro- duced other parties; Jerry Emery, Landscape Designer, Gay Pang, Traffic Consultant, Susan Roberts, Engineer and Hilda Wong. Complimented Staff, Linda and Jeff, for all their hard work. Mr. Jackson feels there is nothing on property for which a conservation easement would be imposed. Went into detail regarding background of property. Discussed each item in Staff Report. John Scott, 26385 Altamont Road, across from lot 3 and 4. He is concerned with access of the driveways; other two driveways have short view and would be dangerous. Lot 4 has no view to the left. Planning Commission Minutes July 22, 1992 Page 7 APPROVED Commissioner Comiso had spoken to Mr. Scott and stood by stakes and asked Mr. Scott how he would feel about combination driveways in which he replied he feels both driveways are too short. Tony Spore, Julietta Lane, made two points regarding the conservation easement; does not think the important thing is whether or not the easement would be acceptable at this point but the fact that it has been there for a long time and we should have a strong public purpose for deciding that we are going to change that long standing situation. Also some of. the residents on Julietta Lane bought the properties with the understanding that the easements would exist for a long period of time and felt it had an impact on the value of the properties and certainly on the aesthetics. The information regarding the easement was provided by the builder in 1985. Gay Pang, Pang Engineers, Mt. View, representing Hilda Wong. Stated they did not do the work that is in the EIR which is done by a firm TJKM out of Pleasanton. In regards to traffic, the recommendations in the TJKM report that are in the EIR are more than adequate, meaning that they would and do exceed any of the prior project requirements that have been approved in the Town of Los Altos Hills. He has personally worked on several other projects in the Hills that have met the AASHTO and Caltrans standards. The standards that are here and recommended by TJKM exceed those standards. To respond to Mr. Scott's question, he believes the stake on lot 5 is where the driveway is currently on the Plan, however, it is intended to be moved further down the hill. To answer the question by Ms. McGowan, the cul-de- sac which is proposed by TJKM was to meet or exceed the standards for the Institute of Transportation Engineers so that firm decided to relocate that cul-de-sac to the TJKM recommended location for purposes of satisfying the distance requirements. Mr. Pang concurs with the recommendations by TJKM even though they are more then adequate and meet all the requirements or exceed all requirements of past projects that have been approved in the Town of Los Altos Hills. CLOSE PUBLIC HEARING Commissioner Schreiner started with the EIR stating she does not feel it adequately covered the traffic survey. She does not know any subdivision in town that has four access points for essentially what is a subdivision of eight lots. She lives in a subdivision of 28 homes and has one entrance and access. She can name dozens of others that are accessed by one road. She feels the EIR should take a look at putting in an entire road into the subdivision with one access point from Altamont, wherever the best site distance is. She has heard from many other people that the section down to the Sisters is one of the most dangerous ones in town and the Council is aware of it as it was on their Agenda with four or five accidents last year where cars actually went over the embankment so this area needs to be looked at more carefully. Another item not addressed in EIR is the internal pathway which Planning Commission Minutes APPROVED July 22, 1992 Page 8 she is sure the Pathway Committee will recommend because they already have one coming down, however, shown incorrectly on lot 1 which is actually parcel 1 on the original 3 lot subdivision from Julietta and accesses Silent Hills Lane. Regarding the proposed parcels, she clarified with Ms. Niles that the 50' conservation easement includes the Town's 40' setback which the Commissioners clarified eliminates any development already. Commissioner Schreiner does not feel this is equal conservation easement acreage to replace the existing conservation easement. Commissioner Stutz requested everyone to look at page 1 of the 1992 map showing the width of Altamont Road being doubled and does not feel it is acceptable. The Commission did stress when they originally came in (in 1988 or 1989) and asked for suggestions on the subdivision that the path should go on top of the bank off the road; no more driveways would be acceptable off of Altamont and the subdivision is big enough to have interior roads. The Commission also asked them to consider designing all at the same time which was not possible by the demands made by the Eshner Estate. She also felt Parcel 1 and 5 could be accessed off Silent Hills; feels the present bulb on the present cul-de-sac should come up almost to the property line of parcel 3 of the previous subdivision where the original house is and if there is no other place to put a road then the road would run around the exterior of that lot and round to lot 5 and then parcel 1 would not be a horrible lot with a big panhandle. Put that length into the cul-de-sac that comes up so you will have a better lot division. Commissioner Stutz mentioned that the Town does not approve private cul-de-sacs that can be gated off. She would like to propose that the building setback would be at least 20' beyond the 50' conservation easement. A statement was made that the EIR was looking at all the options of access and not taking into effect whether or not they are constrained by not owning the property and having to gain access. Commissioner Comiso asked if it were feasible to consider these access options. Ms. Niles responded stating it is feasible to look at alternate accesses because if there is a better alternative the Town would like to consider that. Since a portion of Silent Hills is going to be required to become public in the near future due to this subdivision or the development of the previous parcel 2, the only concern we will have would be for the additional land that would be required at the end of Silent Hills that is not dedicated. If the property owner could not come to an agreement with the person who owns the land between the roads that are existing or will become public then it might be that the Town would have to use condemnation procedures or not approve the subdivision. Chairman Pahl stated he and Commissioner Stutz were the original members at the Site Development Committee that viewed this application (fall of 1989) and he was surprised that none of the comments that were made at that time were incorporated in the application, very few were addressed in the EIR. To date they still exist and have not been addressed, first being pathways that look like sidewalks which is not �W appropriate. The Committee suggested an off road pathway for this particular Planning Commission Minutes July 22, 1992 Page 9 APPROVED subdivision. They suggested a pathway that went through the cul-de-sac and out on Silent Hills to completely avoid going along Altamont. Another suggestion, the project looked at in 1989 was a 7 lot subdivision and the concern was all the accesses off Altamont. Lot 5 can come off Silent Hills Lane, maybe Lot 1, which leave Lot 4 and the question is does Lot 4 need access to Altamont and if it does it needs to be very carefully put in. This might be a good lot for a circular driveway. Lastly, regarding the conservation easement, it should have a reason. He feels there are more appropriate locations on this site for conservation easements, especially in the groves and the 30% slope. Chairman Pahl is very concerned with the area on the Julietta Lane properties and feels they have a conservation easement that is very small but is on a very fragile part of this property. Chairman Pahl asked if there were any further comments. Being none he stated that all comments will be passed to City Council. MOTION SECONDED AND WITHDRAWN: Motion by Stutz and seconded by Comiso to continue the item to hear further comments regarding the map. Commissioner Comiso commented on coming off Silent Hills Lane. There may be other ways to access all 5 lots, however, she does not have enough information. She would like to see interior roads but would like to see them on the pieces of property $6r that are being discussed now and not get into trying to get other owners to do what this subdivision wants done. She cannot re -draw this map and would like to see as few as possible roads coming off Altamont. She would like to be shown how to access down to Lot 5. She feels they are all in agreement with regards to the conservation easements and need to look at them with a specific purpose. Commissioner Schreiner agrees with Commissioner Comiso in taking a good look at interior roads, however, does not agree with comments on conservation easements. She feels as much of the original conservation easement that was put on this subdivision should be retained unless the applicant can show perhaps the view easement and the proposed conservation easement will serve the purpose of the original conservation easement. She does not see the 50' easement being proposed as adequate in any way. MOTION SECONDED AND PASSED: Motion by Comiso and seconded by Cheng to continue this for more information and possible redesign to a date specific, September 9th. AYES: Chairman Pahl, Commissioners Cheng, Comiso, Schreiner & Stutz NOES: None ABSENT: Commissioners Ellinger & Sinunu kbr Planning Commission Minutes APPROVED July 22, 1992 Page 10 4 Chairman Pahl noted that the subdivision is being continued to our meeting of September 9th and this will be the last hearing of the evening. Chairman Pahl recognized Bob Stutz who was waiting to address the map and stated the Pathway Committee does not like the paths along Altamont on the same grade as the road. It is extremely dangerous now and will be even more dangerous in the future. Years ago when this first came up it was proposed that the paths be put inside of the existing fence or at least above the grade above and that is were they would like that section of path. Also the map shows no internal paths connecting with the existing one coming down from Julietta and this needs to be worked on for a future map. 4.4 EAVES IN SETBACK: To be continued to September 9th meeting. 5. NEW BUSINESS 5.2 Representative from Commission for the Pathway Committee. Commissioner Schreiner volunteered. 6. OLD BUSINESS None 7. APPROVAL OF MEETING MINUTES FROM PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING OF JUNE 24. MOTION SECONDED AND PASSED BY CONSENSUS WITH CHENG AND SCHREINER ABSTAINING: Motion by Comiso and seconded by Stutz to approve minutes with corrections on page 5 and 6; voting twice. 8. COMMISSIONERS' COMMENTS Ms. Niles provided the Commission a rotating schedule for attendance of City Council meetings. Chairman Pahl is contacting Mayor Tryon to schedule a joint meeting and would like to bring up the issue of when Council receives information which the Commission has not heard, it should be returned to the Commission for a decision. Ms. Niles will bring this to the Council's attention if she finds information differs from Planning Commission to City Council. We need to make sure that the information the applicant is presenting to the Planning Commission is the same information heard by the City Council. 0%, 9. REPORT FROM SITE DEVELOPMENT MEETING OF JULY 14, 1992 Planning Commission Minutes July 22, 1992 L Page 11 v APPROVED 9.1 LANDS OF CHENG, 12950 Cortez Lane: A request for a Site Development Permit for a pool. Approved with conditions: pathway to be clear and repaired if needed after construction is complete. Commission discussed Lands of Yu setting it for September 9, 1992 meeting. Lighting discussion at Site Development meetings require applicant to show all lighting and if all the lighting is not shown the meeting will be continued. Lands of Finn will be heard August 4th. Prior to meeting the lighting will be viewed at night. Lands of Hansen choice of paint color for their house was discussed. Lands of Dorricott will be heard at the August 19th City Council Meeting. Ms. Niles provided Commission with the schedule for the review of the General Plan and the information for the first review meeting which is set for September 9th at which time they will have Eaves in Setback, the first chapters of the General Plan review including the Introduction and Overview plus Executive Schedule. 10. REPORT FROM THE CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF JUNE 3, 1992. Lands of Dorricott will be on the August 19th City Council calendar. 11. ADJOURNMENT MOTION SECONDED AND PASSED: Motion by Schreiner, seconded by Stutz and passed by consensus to adjourn the meeting at 10:20 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Lani Lonberger Planning Secretary