Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout09/09/1992EW MUM Minutes of a Regular Meeting 4w Town of Los Altos Hills PLANNING COMMISSION Wednesday, September 9, 1992, 7:30 P.M. Council Chambers, 26379 Fremont Road cc: Cassettes #15-92 (4) 1. ROI A ND PI EDGE OF ALLEGIANCE Planning Commission meeting was called to order at 7:30 p.m. in the Council Chambers at Town Hall. Present: Chairman Pahl, Commissioners Cheng, Comiso, Ellinger, Schreiner, Sinunu & Stutz Absent: None Staff: Linda Niles, Town Planner; Jeff Peterson, City Engineer; Lani Lonberger, Planning Secretary 2. PRESENTATIONS FROM THE FLOOR ` None. 3. CONSENT CALEND Items appearing on the Consent Calendar are considered routine and will be adopted in one motion, except for any item removed for separate consideration elsewhere on the agenda. The Chairman will ask the Commission and the audience for requests to remove these items. 3.1 LANDS OF LOHR, LOT 27, 24013 Oak Knoll Circle: Continued from August 27, 1992 for approval of redesign of the pool and grading. 3.2 Ordinance amending Title 10 with regard to Day Care Homes and recommended Negative Declaration. Chairman Pahl asked if anyone wished to have any item removed from the consent calendar; being none : MOTION SECONDED AND PASSED: Motion by Commissioner Stutz and seconded by Commissioner Comiso to approve the consent calendar. AYES: Chairman Pahl, Commissioners Cheng, Comiso, Ellinger, Schreiner, Sinunu & Stutz NOES: None 4. PUBLIC HEARING Planning Commission Minutes APPROVED September 9, 1992 Page 2 4 4.1 LANDS OF YU, 12000 Emerald Hill Lane: A request for a Site Development Permit for Landscape and Hardscape Plan. Ms. Niles introduced this item stating this project was originally reviewed and approved by the Planning Commission for a new residence and swimming pool on March 13, 1991. Visual mitigation's were required as conditions which included the submittal of the landscape plan to the Town for approval, and approval by the Planning Commission for the color of the house. The Planning Commission approved the color of the house at their meeting of June 24, 1992 unanimously. The landscape plan was reviewed at the Site Development Committee meeting of July 21, 1992 and was approved with the requirement for some additional trees and subject to the conditions of approval as listed in the Staff Report. The Planning Commission requested that the landscape plan be agendized for review at this meeting. Native planting was proposed. The applicant's are proposing to plant the largest specimen plants that they could in order to screen the house from the surrounding area as soon as possible. The existing oak trees on site have not been damaged during construction and are not going to be removed. The slope in front of the house facing Prospect Avenue will be hydroseeded. OPENED PUBLIC HEARING Dan Tuttle, SWA Group, Sausalito, Landscape Architect, stated that the landscaping plan was two fold; one, to screen the project as requested and two, to keep landscape as localized and compact as possible. His client was very interested in the survival of the oaks because it was the only buffer between his yard and the neighbors. Chairman Pahl noted that he was very opposed to this project. When the Commission was presented with this project there was a proposed orchard in the front that was to be the screening device. Commissioner Pahl saw nothing but hydroseed, and trees that will loose their leaves every year. The only place where there was screening was from Emerald Hill Lane and from their neighbors from the rear. There was no screening for the benefit of the Town. Commissioner Pahl asked Mr. Yu if he had reviewed the project as Mr. Yu had attended the Planning Commission meetings and knew what was being proposed. Mr. Yu responded that he had reviewed the plan. Mr. Tuttle indicated that they had reviewed the previous proposal showing an orchard in the front and there were a number of reasons why they felt it was unnecessary. The orchard required a great deal of irrigation across the front yard and they felt in the interest of minimizing water use and minimizing expense for the client they would concentrate the landscape near the house. CLOSED PUBLIC 14EARING Commissioner Stutz questioned the proposed photo montage originally presented. She asked why hydroseed was not planted when the house went in. The response Planning Commission Minutes APPROVED September 9, 1992 Page 3 4 from Chairman Pahl was that an orchard was proposed so there would be no need for hydroseed. Commissioner Comiso discussed the original proposal and screening of the property. She was concerned about planting trees that loose their leaves. This would only provide screening in the summer time. Commissioner Ellinger commented that the project had been changed since originally submitted and agreed with Commissioner Comiso in that the project did need to be screened all year and not just in the summer. MOTION SECONDED AND PASSED: Motion by Commissioner Comiso and seconded by Commissioner Ellinger to continue for redesign. When the project is returned, the Commission would like to review the photo montage originally presented. AYES: Chairman Pahl, Commissioners Cheng, Comiso, Ellinger, Schreiner, Sinunu, and Stutz NOES: None The application was continued for redesign. 4.2 LANDS OF OWEN, 13040 Alta Lane North; A request for a Site Development Permit for a new residence, pool and spa. Ms. Niles introduced this item stating the proposal was for the construction of a new two story single family dwelling unit on an existing 1.94 acre lot which is located on a site which is bordered on two sides by Alta Lane North and Alta Lane South respectively. The applicant is proposing two separate driveway entrances for the project. One will enter off of Alta Lane North onto a circular entry driveway that can accommodate a required parking space out of the setback. The other driveway entrance is proposed off of Alta Lane South and will enter the proposed garage. The two driveways do not connect. Staff requested that the width of the driveway on Alta Lane South be reduced in order to require removal of only one tree, and to lessen the expanse of hard surface that is visible from the street. The project had been planned to include all outdoor living area that the new buyer wished on the lot which included decking and a pool. No pool house was requested. Although the house had been designed to meet the ordinance standards for grading, height limits, set backs, MFA and MDA, the actual design of the house appears to be considerably massive and bulky. Included in their packet was a letter dated August 30, 1992 from Mr. Bob Johnson and his concern for construction traffic parking on the narrow roads. A condition had been added for review addressing ` this issue. A letter from Mr. Flack was distributed to the Planning Commissioners fir, listing his concerns regarding the second driveway. The Town's geologist William Cotton and Associates had reviewed the geotechnical study for the project and had recommended approval of the project with conditions for the grading and construction of the home. The drainage and grading had been reviewed by the City Planning Commission Minutes APPROVED September 9, 1992 Page 4 kEngineer and had been conceptually approved. A final grading and drainage plan would be required to be submitted and approved by the City Engineer prior to issuance of any building permits. Staff requested that the Commission discuss the impacts of the proposed structure on the site and review the information submitted, take public input and direct staff accordingly. Commissioner Schreiner asked Ms. Niles for recommendations for reducing the bulk and mass of the house, the purpose of two driveways and if it were possible to have the lower portion of the lot designated as a conservation easement. Ms. Niles replied that the lower portion was not at 30% slope and that was why it was not required to be placed in a conservation easement. In answering the question regarding two driveways she responded that the driveway to the front was for guest entry and the driveway for the garage was to access the garage which faces a different direction. Recommendations to reduce bulk were also discussed. OPENED PUBLIC HEARING Bob Owen, 445 San Antonio, Los Altos, discussed the buyer, the Ramsey's, and the design of the house and how care was taken by going through the neighborhood to see what exposure there would be to the house. He noted that the only area that 4WSunset. see the house would be one house on Wildflower Lane and three houses on Sunset. Mr. Owen presented several signatures from neighbors approving the project. The project is on septic. Mr. Owen felt the swimming pool was in an obvious location for proximity from the dining room, family room, kitchen, and for view consideration and the house steps down the hill. Mr. Owen was asked what else he could do to mitigate the appearance of bulk on the rear of the house. Mr. Owen stated that it was not a Frank Lloyd Wright house. The clients wanted more of a traditional house and the rear had been stepped quite a bit. Another question was how many agreements he received from neighbors from Alta Lane North and Alta Lane South. Mr. Owen polled neighbors he felt would be impacted by the home with only positive results. Commissioner Ellinger asked for the reason for the large paved area in front and the applicant explained it was off street parking and to establish development area to be finalized at the landscape and hardscape review. Mr. Owen noted that when the project returns with a landscaping plan they will redesign the area. Commissioner Schreiner asked if they considered stepping this house down and Mr. Owen stated the clients were really interested in a two story house although it could be possible. t6, Mike Ramsey, 26300 Alexander Place, (the prospective buyers) appreciated all the comments and he and his wife had spent considerable time on the design and they were very happy with the European design. Of concern to the Ramsey's was their Planning Commission Minutes APPROVED September 9, 1992 ( Page 5 desire for a conventional two story house although he would be willing to look at the suggestions to lower the look of the house. CLOSED PUBLIC HEARING Commissioner Ellinger noted that a small amount of the bulk could be mitigated if the applicants would be willing to go through a couple minor design changes. He would also like to have a drawing that would reflect what would be approved as far as pavement and pool area. Commissioner Ellinger would approve the house and the driveway as shown on Alta Lane South and would request the project return with a redesign of the front and the pool. Commissioner Sinunu felt that the house from Alta Lane North in its present position had a substantial amount of bulk for the neighborhood. His first impression was that the house was too large for the majority of the neighborhood and perhaps a one story house set back further from both roads would be more appropriate. He felt the house as designed changed the smaller home, rural character of the neighborhood. Commissioner Sinunu noted that perhaps it would help to extend the eaves and redesign a smaller driveway, and keep the lands around it more rural. He did feel that this was a beautiful house and perhaps the landscaping and change in the amount of cement/asphalt in the front of the house 16V would make a difference. - Chairman Pahl felt that the area was in transition. He felt that the project would need heavy landscaping as it would be at the entrance to both Alta Lane North and South. He asked if the Commissioners were going to control or assist in this transition. He noted one option would be to ask that this be continued for two weeks to have the applicant reconsider eaves, roof pitches, swimming pool, driveway design and access. Commissioner Stutz agreed with the suggestion, however, the Commission usually did not approve a pool without a pool design. Commissioner Comiso discussed mitigation of this house from the rear and felt that there were quite a few areas that could be mitigated with some fairly substantial trees for the benefit of those across the valley that would not interfere with any of the windows. She discussed the two driveways and she would like to be very cautious when discussing narrowing the entrance and exit of these driveways and to think about the number of people using these driveways and the number of people using the street and the need to turn around. Commissioner Schreiner agreed with Commissioner Sinunu and his concerns and p felt that if access is to be provided to any of these houses from two areas, the rural qualities would be destroyed. Commissioner Stutz asked Staff if they were requiring the additional road right-of- way and the response from the City Engineer was yes. Planning Commission Minutes APPROVED September 9, 1992 Page 6 Bob Owen requested not to continue for two weeks as they would be getting into the rainy season and by the time this was approved it would take a minimum of 6 weeks to draw the plans. He felt the Staff was competent to review the new elevation that would be submitted if they decided on a new eave line. He felt that the paving could be reviewed when the landscaping plan was submitted. MOTION SECONDED AND PASSED: Motion by Commissioner Ellinger and seconded by Commissioner Comiso to approve with additions to recommended conditions: 1. Submit a minor modification to the design to accommodate an eave, 12" to 18". 2. Modification to the roof line to reduce a dead space area located approximately over and between the living room and the main body of the house. 3. This design is for the building. The driveway off Alta Lane South would come back for review with the pool, hardscape and landscape. Commissioner Comiso questioned Condition #9 and she would like to see Staff view the area prior to construction to determine damage. Ms. Niles stated that Staff is requiring as part of Condition #9 that the applicant provide the file with photographs of the existing conditions of the roadways before issuance of the building permits and when the project is completed the photographs can be reviewed. AYES: Chairman Pahl, Commissioners Stutz, Cheng, Comiso, Ellinger NOES: Commissioners Schreiner & Sinunu This will appear on the Consent Calendar for the City Council on September 16, 1992. Brief break at 9:00 p.m 4.3 LANDS OF PACKARD, Altamont Road, APN 182-23-002; A request for a Site Development Permit for a new residence and barn. Ms. Niles introduced this item by stating this proposal was for the construction of a new two story single family dwelling unit on an existing 19.99 acre lot which is located off of and surrounded on three sides by Altamont Road. The average slope of the lot is 19.1% with a Lot Unit Factor of 16.09. The site is very visible from the surrounding properties since the site is currently vacant and surrounded by public road. The house is proposed to be constructed at 11,592 sq. ft. of floor area with an accessory building at 1,805 sq. ft. The property is proposed to be constructed with Planning Commission Minutes APPROVED September 9, 1992 Page 7 25,158 sq. ft. of development area. The maximum height of the structure from natural grade is 27, and the overall lowest to highest dimension is 35'. It has been a concernof the Planning Commission and Council that there not be any elements of the structure that appear to be three stories as viewed from off-site. Staff requested that the Commission discuss the issue for this particular site and design since the subject site is very large and the structure is proposed to be sited at a considerable distance from any existing dwelling units on surrounding lots. This elevation may be able to be viewed at a great distance from Altamont Road bordering the southern property line, however, the bulk and mass of the house appears to have been designed to be in proportion to the size of the lot. Ms Niles further discussed from the Staff Report Pathways, Conservation Easements and Grading. Regarding pathways, the Pathways are proposed by the Pathway Committee slightly separated from the project frontage and the Altamont Road right-of-way where it would be most logical to be safely traveled. The Committee is also requesting that the applicant state an intent to dedicate and develop a pathway heading north from Altamont Road through the adjacent commonly owned lot to the east of the project and continuing through the project close but not parallel with the north eastern property line. The purpose is to connect to anticipated paths in the creek area and continuing north and then west. Since the adjacent lot, though owned by the applicant's father at this time, is not a part of this site development application, and it is not appropriate for the Planning Commission to require the dedication and improvement of a path which is located off site. However, the Commission may wish to discuss the concept of a pathway in this location at some time in the future to be voluntarily dedicated by the property owner, if the Town were to accept the improvement and maintenance responsibilities. Jeff Peterson, City Engineer, added to recommended conditions the following: 9. Add after second sentence, "If necessary for construction of the pathway, a 10' pathway easement shall be dedicated to the Town along this frontage" which would be Altamont Road. 11. The applicant shall dedicate right-of-way to the Town of Los Altos Hills along Altamont Road so as to provide a 30' half street right-of-way width measured from the centerline of the existing road. 12. A sight stopping distance shall be provided for the proposed driveway access to Altamont Road for a design speed of 35 mph as outlined in the standards of the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE). The access shall be designed to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. Commissioner Stutz noted that in the past when the Commission had reviewed a subdivision, one requirement would be to know what was going to happen to the rest of the property. She would like to make sure if this is one separate piece of property that can access off of Altamont that it is the only access onto Altamont and when the subdivision of the 9 acres is requested, that access would be required to use the same driveway off of Altamont. M Planning Commission Minutes APPROVED September 9, 1992 Page 8 Chairman Pahl stated that this property would require an easement on it or all the other property would require an easement on this property because this would be the only driveway. He noted that the Commission could not ask Mr. Packard what the person he sells the property to would do with it. He agreed that there should only be one driveway on this parcel. Commissioner Ellinger discussed the pathway that leads nowhere. He asked if the Pathway Committee would suggest a dedicated easement for a path. Commissioner Schreiner stated that the Pathway Committee would be able to answer. Jeff Peterson continued recommendations: 13. The proposed sanitary sewer easement for the existing sanitary sewer main shall be 20' in width. 14. The proposed water main easement and water line shall extend to the proposed Altamont lot line just to the east of the driveway. 15. Fire protection improvements shall be installed as required by the Los Altos Fire Department. OPENED PUBLIC HEARING David W. Packard, 26580 Taaffe, gave history of his family and the property and the thought behind the design. His parents owned 80 acres in Los Altos Hills and they have kept all of it open except for the one house they built for themselves and the guest house next to it that they are living in. He could not speak for his father, however, he could say his father's intention was to give this land to the Packard Foundation, keeping the area rural, agricultural; keeping it an apricot orchard and an asset to the community. The 20 acre parcel is owned by his father and he had offered to give the property to each of his children. He and his sister accepted the offer. His father pursued .a lot line adjustment so he and his sister would jointly own 10 acres. The proper order would have been to wait for the lot line adjustment to be approved and then come back with the application for the site development. He stated his father did not want to grant the easement, the path that goes nowhere, at this time, however, he is very anxious to produce a good path along Altamont which would be on the border of their property after the lot line adjustment. He and his father have no problem with dedicating the 30' road way and building the path along the remainder of Altamont. This is the portion of Altamont that is along his father's existing property and the property that will continue to be his father's after the lot line adjustment. As part of this they would be willing to commit themselves to dedicating the 30' from the center of the road not only on the property they will own but also the property that his father will own and build in the path that the Commission required all along Altamont. Unfortunately, the path that leads no where is not in his control. Planning Commission Minutes APPROVED September 9, 1992 [ Page 9 Chairman Pahl asked if Mr. Packard had given consideration to how the driveway would connect and would it connect into his driveway if the lot was sold and his sister built a house. The response was that the same driveway access would be used and the proposed water line easement goes exactly along the property line which would be the property line if they submitted for a subdivision in the future. Chairman Pahl asked about property on the far right side which is a full orchard. He asked if Mr. Packard knew if there were existing plans for that area. The response was as far as Mr. Packard knew that areawould be given to the Foundation. Chairman Pahl stated he would like to see an easement to his father's lot in the event that lot is subdivided. Mr. Packard had no problem with having a single entrance to Altamont, however, he does have a problem with committing to a long access through their property for anyone in the future. Commissioner Stutz asked if he would be willing to write a statement to the effect that he would consider in the future giving an easement if ever there were a possibility of connecting paths, not giving an easement, but saying he would consider it in the future. Mr. Packard stated he had no problem with the request. i Mel Malonowski discussed the design of the project and answered the question 4/ regarding the height of the project. Carol Gottlieb, Pathway Committee, had met with Mel and the Packards and walked the property. She explained that the Pathway Committee is commissioned to look at paths and is charged with getting easements according to the 1982 Master Path Plan which is part of the General Plan. When lands come in for development review, even though they do not have connections at that time, but there are connections that may be available in the future, it is their charge to ask for the easement that may be picked up in the future. The path that was recommended and where they want the path to go is along the Corbetta subdivision fence line and the Packard's property. There is a lovely 10' area that is slightly down from the Corbetta properties so if there was ever a house built there you would not be looking down into anyone 's yard; they would be looking down onto the path. When the Pathways Committee recommendation was for a native path along Altamont it was because they realized that only one house was being built along the long stretch of Altamont. She understood that the Packard's are possibly willing to put in a IIB path which she thanks them for if this is the ultimate decision, however, the Committee felt that since it was only one house along such a long frontage that at this time they would not condition a IIB path. L Commissioner Ellinger asked Carol if she was asking for an easement that `, technically is on a piece of property that does not belong to this Mr. Packard. Carol responded that what they were asking for was an easement along the present east lot line which she understood did not belong to this Mr. Packard. They realized Planning Commission Minutes APPROVED September 9, 1992 Page 10 4W that this would not be the perfect place when the lot line change was presented and it would be in the middle of. the property. When the committee walked the property with Mel they walked the Corbetta fence to see if this would work into a path as far away from any kind of subdivision. She noted that they did not want a path through the middle of the property and that sometimes you have to ask now and when things are not right, move it later. Commissioner Ellinger asked Carol that since Commission Stutz suggested the letter of intent, and since they are offering to create a IIB path over a tremendous amount of frontage, did this technical approach sound satisfactory to the Pathway Committee? Carol responded that it was satisfactory and suggested since they recommended a native path, if they were going to put in a IIB path that it could be done as a donation to the Town- Mr. own Mr. Packard, in response to the previous statements stated that if the lot line adjustment were approved then this would no longer be an issue because this application had nothing to do with the placement of this path. They could simply wait and hope that the lot line adjustment would be approved. He was simply asking that there would be a way to, put a condition that would say that the lot line addition must be approved as submitted before building can commence; something to that affect so that a house would not be built unless the lot line had been moved. His father's property is his property and he felt that there was a good possibility that he could be talked to about doing something on his property with paths. Mel stated he had walked the pathway on the Corbetta side with the Pathway Committee and felt that the pathway that makes sense, if it ever happened, it would be over at the far edge, not actually on the 19 acres that is being considered, but on a 2 acre piece beyond it at the far edge. He did not feel it was appropriate to try to extract a path that does not really go were you want it to go in order to have leverage to get a different path later. What he would like to do is have the Commission consider a path in its proper time if that lot is ever divided. CLOSED PUBLIC HEARING Commissioner Ellinger was in.favor of the project. He would like to make a motion to approve with added conditions to Staff Recommended Conditions: extension of an easement line for the water to the proposed adjusted lot line; lot line adjustment must be approved before issuance of building permits; does not want to require in this motion a IIB path, however, in the course of construction if someone said we would like to construct a IIB path, he would not want to turn it down; include stopping distance review for driveway access as proposed; easement over driveway, (� this property grant adjacent property (after the lot line adjustment) an easement over their driveway from Altamont for the first 150'; Corbetta path ask applicant to note this with a letter and the letter be drafted to the satisfaction of Staff. Planning Commission Minutes APPROVED September 9, 1992 Page 11 Commissioner Comiso asked for a discussion of the 150' easement for access to the new anticipated easterly lot. Commissioner Ellinger discussed the path and he is very concerned for the security of this applicant. Commissioner Schreiner would like to discuss the additional conservation easement and it was asked that it be an added condition as part of the motion. Commissioner Ellinger added to the motion that the conservation easement be dedicated as shown on the red line map on file with the Town. Chairman Pahl is very concerned that the Commission pay attention when reviewing projects for the possibility of further subdivision of the property. He noted that this property may someday be subdivided. He also noted that the path requested on the east property line was not in the right place since this lot line is being moved over. He thinks the path should be reviewed when this lot is subdivided, if there is a connection. He noted that putting a path through a working orchard is not appropriate and he agreed with not putting in a path at this point, although when that lot is subdivided or some type of development is proposed on that lot that would be an appropriate time to discuss the pathway. Chairman Pahl suggested that Staff make a note in their file that when this property comes back for a landscape design that appropriate mitigation measures to eliminate the three story facade be included as a condition of approval. MOTION SECONDED AND PASSED: Motion by Commissioner Ellinger and seconded by Commissioner Comiso with the above recommendations. AYES: Chairman Pahl, Commissioners Stutz, Cheng, Comiso, Ellinger, Schreiner & Sinunu NOES: None This will appear on the Consent Calendar for the City Council September 16, 1992. 4.4 LANDS OF ESHNER/WONG, Altamont Road and Altamont Lane; Review of response to comments on EIR; and Tentative Subdivision Map review continued from July 22, 1992. Chairman Pahl noted that the Public Hearing would be opened to hear only new testimony that was not heard previously. Ms. Niles introduced this item stating the Commission was requested to review and comment on the Response to Comments which would be forwarded to the City �W Council for review at their September 16, 1992 meeting. Additional Planning Commission and staff comments received at that meeting would be included in the City Council Response to Comments document. Additionally; the Commission was requested to review the Tentative Subdivision Map alternative access exhibits Planning Commission Minutes APPROVED September 9, 1992 Page 12 4 submitted by the applicant's engineer and review his letter dated August 27, 1992 regarding the applicant's proposed modifications. The Pathways Committee met with the applicant and her engineer and would be recommending path locations to be considered by the Planning Commission. As noted in the letter from Bill Kull, they were agreeable to the requested path along Altamont Road. In order to approve the map the Commission needed to consider the findings and discuss the submitted recommended conditions of approval set forth in the Staff report. Ms. Niles would like the Commission to review the access alternatives, the issues of the pathways, the issues of the conservation easement and the design of the conservation easement to determine whether or not the project would be able to be approved as proposed or if there needs to be a redesign in keeping with what the Commission would like to see on the project. If it appeared the project would be approved as is or approved with minor redesign to meet the concerns of the Commission for the conservation easement, the access easements and pathway, the Commission may wish to put those conditions on the map and forward with recommendations to the City Council. The reason Ms. Niles was asking for careful consideration was that they were under time constraints for processing of the EIR and of the map.. If it appeared that there were elements of the design that the Commission would like to see that the applicant or the applicant's engineer feels can not be done or would not be able to be changed then the Planning Commission would consider recommending denial of the map as submitted in order to move it forward so the Council could review the issues and the concerns in a timely manner. Commissioner Schreiner asked of Staff the acreage of the three individual segments that make up lot 5 and the acreage of the 30' portion of the 70' setback along the road right-of-way which she believes is the true conservation easement. She asked how much did the view easement consist of, how much acreage was the site where the house would sit, how much acreage was the previous conservation easement which was proposed on the first map where the human habitation setback was, and total of all the conservation easements add up. She also asked for the procedure for open space dedication of any one of the setbacks. Jeff Peterson answered the questions regarding conservation easements as shown on the map. Ms. Niles explained that in order for the Town to consider park land dedication it would be recommended that it be taken during the subdivision process as a separate lot so it would not be a private easement lot. She suggested since the Town had limited capability for maintaining the public lands they already have due to small crew and major budget cuts, that would be a decision that would be considered by the City Council as to whether or not the Town could handle any more open space or public park land. She also discussed grading and access roads. Planning Commission Minutes APPROVED September 9, 1992 Page 13 4W Commissioner Ettinger asked if there were drawings showing a single access from the road and showing the rest with interior accesses and the answer was yes. Hilda Wong, 477 S. San Antonio Road, thanked the Commission for all the input at the last Planning Commission meeting and thanked the Staff for all their help . She felt the plans presented were a very good design consisting of 5 generous lots ranging from 1.54 acres to 2.31 acres. Because of the generous lot size they would be able to setback the homes a minimum of 70' from Altamont Road. They would provide large areas for conservation easement totaling in size of 2.45 acres. She also agreed to have a pathway off Altamont Road and put it on the property. The Plans as designed involved very little grading. The access points have been reduced from 3 to 2. This project had caused her a lot of time and money to get this far and she sincerely hoped that the Commission would accept their own consultants recommendations that the two access points are safe. She discussed Condition #5 regarding conservation easements for the protection of oak trees and slopes over 30% being dedicated as approved by the City Council. She also felt uncomfortable with the condition requiring replacing five 48" box trees for every tree damaged or removed. The arborist with STA had recommended removal of two oak tree and one eucalyptus and she hoped that the Town would not enforce this condition. Bill Kull, Civil Engineer, 20431 Stevens Creek Blvd., Cupertino, discussed the revisions to the tentative map and conservation easements. Chairman Pahl stated that at both meetings, the last Planning Commission meeting and the Site Development meeting 3 years ago, there was a discussion regarding having a pathway enter the cul-de-sac and existing Silent Hills Lane and asked what was the reason this was not put in as an alternative? Bill Kull stated he had met with the Pathway Committee on the site and discussed pathway options. Commissioner Schreiner stated that the pathway requirement on parcel 5 was not dependent on what happens on the Julie Eshner property; it was dependent on what was happening on parcel 2. Bill Kull also discussed the alternative access locations. They had provided on the tentative map a revision to the access and had shown lots 1, 2, and 3 would be accessed on the cul-de-sac as originally indicated on the previous application. They have moved the access and created a single access for lots 4 and 5 at the location recommended by the TJKM traffic study. Bill Kull further discussed access C alternatives, A through D. �r Commissioner Ellinger discussed the possibility of considering 2 lots rather than 5 as it appeared that too much was being squeezed into this area. Planning Commission Minutes APPROVED September 9, 1992 ` Page 14 Bill Kull presented a summary of traffic accidents in the Altamont area. He also discussed condition #5 requesting a conservation easements as previously discussed by Hilda Wong. He felt that the conditions #28 and #29 were sufficient to protect the oak trees. In discussing Condition #17, he would like two things required; they would only be required to build the sanitary sewer line at a normal depth and would like the Commission and Council to consider reimbursement of additional sewer laterals if there were a significant number so this project could be reimbursed for sewers serving other properties. In summary they requested that the Commission accept the revised conservation easement and find that alternative A was the best access. Gay Pang, Traffic Engineer, was present to answer any traffic questions. Jim Jackson, Attorney, 10455 Torre Avenue, Cupertino, discussed the existing conservation easement and proposed conservation easement. He also stated that if they read the tentative map, it stated that this area of the map was reserved for view and slope control purposes and did not say it was dedicated to the public. Chairman Pahl mentioned to Mr. Jackson that this information was covered at prior meetings and they needed to move forward. Carol Gottleib, Pathway Committee, wanted to clarify Condition #10 to specify where this was to be located and specify that the conservation easement could be used as a pathway. The proposed driveway entrance to the two lots were in the conservation easement and would require a special recommendation if they choose to allow a driveway to go into the conservation easement. CLOSED PUBLIC HEARING Commissioner Stutz discussed page 3 of the Mitigation Monitoring Program for EIR. #4 referred to lot 6; should be lot 5. Commissioner Ellinger felt that there were too many lots proposed. Commissioner Simmu agreed with Commissioner Ellinger. Commissioner Comiso discussed the Access Alternatives and preferred "A". She asked why they needed a conservation easement around oaks when the Town has an oak tree ordinance. She added that if they were going to put conservation easements on this, they should state what they were for. Commissioner Ellinger would like to see lots 4 and 5 a one lot and lots 1, 2, and 3 if they came in off the cul-de-sac and were two lots. Commissioner Schreiner was glad that they were starting to consider dedicating some of this to park land. Planning Commission Minutes APPROVED September 9, 1992 Page 15 Commissioner Sinunu discussed park land versus conservation easement. Chairman Pahl noted that when he first saw this subdivision three years ago he was uncomfortable with the subdivision and was still uncomfortable. He felt the problem was with parcel 3, the Eshner house. He would have no problem with a 5 lot subdivision with the Eshner property if the Julie Eshner house property was part of this subdivision. He could not vote to recommend this. He could not recommend a 5 lot subdivision as it is laid out. There was a discussion regarding purchasing the Eshner property. Hilda Wong, stated that the map that they presented met with all City guidelines and ordinances and it was never mentioned before regarding larger lot size. She noted that at each stage there seemed to be added changes. They had to go through an EIR when others were not required. This had caused her a lot of money and hardship. She felt like she had been unfairly treated. MOTION SECONDED AND PASSED: Motion by Commissioner Ellinger and seconded by Commissioner Sinunu to recommend that the City Council deny the Tentative Subdivision Map as designed. AYES: Chairman Pahl, Commissioners Cheng, Comiso, Ellinger, Schreiner, Sinunu & Stutz NOES: None This item will be on the City Council Calendar of October 7, 1992. Commissioner Ellinger asked if there were a mechanism to break into a subcommittee to work out some solutions for this kind of item. It was mentioned that in the past a subcommittee involved two from the Planning Commission, a Environmental Design Committee member, a Pathways Committee member, and Staff. 4.5 Review of Zoning Code Amendment to allow specific encroachment into required setbacks, and certification of recommended Negative Declaration. Ms. Niles introduced this item stating the Town had contemplated the issue of allowing eaves in certain situations to encroach into required setbacks. Staff requested that the Commission review and discuss the current wording and the options suggested, and recommend an option which they felt would best suit the Town's needs at this time for forwarding to the City Council. Commissioner Pahl mentioned there had been a sub committee formed two years ago and he looked over the four options and felt Option B and Option C were the recommendations of that sub committee with the exception of wording; Option B, the granting was by the Planning Commission rather than the Planning Director and Option C he believed it was not 5' but 4". Planning Commission Minutes APPROVED September 9, 1992 Page 16 The Commission discussed Option B, changing the wording, 'other special architectural features, such as porches, balconies, wing walls, bay windows or window seats". Also change "writing" to "granted" and "Director' to "Commission". Other changes are removing brackets from "significant', second paragraph, third line, change "and/or" to 'or'. Numbering will remain the same as #1 is already a part of the ordinance. The Planning Commission approved the above changes by consensus. 5. NEW BUSINESS 5.1 Review a request from Planning Commission for the Environmental Design and Protection Committee to create a recommended planting list. Chairman Pahl stated last year they had a meeting with Peter Shaw and he provided a course on how to plant and not make a house too visible. Chairman Pahl suggested having the Environmental Design and Protection Committee contact Peter Shaw so they could work with him to produce a suggested plant list that the Town could hand out. All the Planning Commissioners concurred with this suggestion and Ms. Niles will forward this recommendation to the City Council so they could confirm the action by the Environmental Design and Protection Committee. 6.1 Review of General Plan. The suggestion was to form a subcommittee of two Commissioners to read each Element and to report to the group with suggestions. This item to be continued to the next meeting, and Commissioner Ellinger would report on the Mineral Elements. APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES OF JULY 8, 1992: Commissioner Ellinger made correction to page 4, third paragraph changing 'under" to "near". - APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES OF JULY 22, 1992: Commissioner Schreiner made correction to page 9, fifth paragraph to read 'She felt as much of the original conservation easement. that was put on this subdivision should be retained unless `, the applicant could show perhaps the view easement "and the proposed conservation easement' will serve the purpose, etc. Planning Commission Minutes APPROVED September 9, 1992 Page 17 MOTION SECONDED AND PASSED: Motion by Commissioner Comiso and seconded by Commission Schreiner and passed unanimously to approve minutes of July 8 and July 22, 1992. �`iRM: k u ►M The meeting was adjourned by consensus at 12:14k.m. Respectfully submitted, LaniLonberger Planning Secretary