Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout11/24/1992Minutes of a Regular Meeting APPROVED Town of Los Altos Hills PLANNING COMMISSION 24,1992, 7:30 P.M. 26379 Fremont Roi cc: cassettes $zu-9z o) 1. ROT T CALL AND PLEDGE 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 Staff: Linda Niles, Town Planner; Jeff Peterson, City Engineer; Lani Lonberger, Planning Secretary 2. PRESENTATIONS FROM THE FLOOR Persons wishing to address the Commission on any subject not on the agenda are invited to do so now. Please note, however, that the Commission is not able to undertake extended discussion or take action tonight on non-agendized items. Such items will be referred to staff or placed on the agenda for a future meeting. Jean Struthers, 13690 Robleda Road, discussed setting an ultimate building limit for floor area and suggested that it be brought up for discussion. She felt that there should be a top limit size for houses on any size lot and recommended discussion by the Planning Commission. Chairman Pahl stated that this topic was brought up at the City Council previously. The City Council indicated that they would prefer a large house versus several small houses. Chairman Pahl suggested Mrs. Struthers take this up with the City Council. The Planning Commission also suggested that Mrs. Struthers bring up specific suggestions regarding proposed building limits rather then asking a broad question. They felt it would be helpful to talk about this in relationship to the General Plan. It was suggested that as the Planning Commission continued their review of the General Plan that they review and consider what other cities are doing regarding building limits. Planning Commission Minutes APPROVED November 24,1992 Page 2 3. CQNSENTCALFNDAR 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. None 4. EUELJQ HEARINGS 4.1 LANDS OF YU, 12000 Emerald Hill Lane; A request for a Site Development Permit for a Landscape and Hardscape Plan. Ms. Niles introduced this item stating there was nothing to add to the Staff Report. OPENED PUBLIC HEARING Dan Tuttle, 2687 McCallister Street, San Francisco, the applicant's representative, stated that he would like to thank the Environmental Design and Protection Committee who joined them on the site. He discussed the revisions to the Plan including replacing the Liquid Amber with Oaks and adding two more Oaks on the street below as shown on the plan and adding an additional pine as well. There were three trees omitted on the previous Plan which now show. Mr. Tuttle discussed Condition 1 with Staff. Staff will delete the word 'before' from Condition 1 regarding the photographs of the existing conditions of the roadways and pathways. CLOSED PUBLIC HEARING Commissioner Schreiner stated that she, Jean Struthers and Commissioner Comiso went to the property as Mr. Tuttle mentioned and what they were concerned with was mitigating some of the more visible features of this house which included the chimney and the two center peaks. What they wanted to do also was to lengthen the line of trees so it would further mitigate the site. She was very pleased to find out that there was considerable planting behind the house. She would like to ask Staff to check on the - progress of the landscaping on the house that is directly behind there. She felt that a combination of the landscaping on the two houses would go a long way to mitigating this site. She recommended approval of the landscape plan with the recommended conditions. MOTION SECONDED AND PASSED: Motion by Commissioner Schreiner and seconded by Commissioner Stutz. Commissioner Comiso discussed Condition 3 and she felt that the $5,000 bond was adequate, however, she would like to see the initial plantings installed immediately. Planning Commission Minutes November 24,1992 Page 3 APPROVED Commissioner Stutz would like Condition 3 to read "installed within 6 months". Ms. Niles stated that she would like the opportunity to allow the applicant to start the planting for the screening that was most important and perhaps have the minor landscaping be phased over the year. Commissioner Comiso would like the entire front of the property red lined op the Plan; all the large trees. The large trees in the back can go in within the first year. She would like 1/4 of the deposit returned after inspection and the remaining to be refunded after two years. The makers of the motion accepted the amended motion to be: Six months for the landscaping in the front of the house; one year for the major landscaping in the back; another year for all other smaller landscaping and hold the remaining deposit for two years. AYES: Chairman Pahl, Commissioners Comiso, Ellinger, Schreiner, Simmu, Stutz & Cheng NOES: None This item will appear on the City Council consent calendar on December 2,1992. 4.2 LANDS OF BELLA,11921 Hilltop Drive; A request for a Site Development Permit for a New Residence, Pool and Pool House. Ms. Niles introduced this item stated that the proposal was for the demolition of an existing single family dwelling and the construction of a new two story single family dwelling unit, pool and pool house on an existing 1.02 acre lot. The house was proposed to be cited in approximately the same location as the existing house, and the driveway entrance would be retained off of Hilltop Drive. The one area of the house that is proposed to have a two story element is over the new three car garage. Landscaping was required as a condition of approval and is most important to be reviewed for adequate screening of the house on such an open lot. The Pathway Committee is requesting that the Planning Commission require a Type IIB path to be installed at the top of bank between the artificial berm and the edge of the bank. They also requested that if this area is not within the road right-of-way, which they since determined it was, that there be a dedication. The dedication is not necessary and the condition of approval has been written to accomplish the recommendations of the Pathway Committee. The Town's geologist has reviewed the geotechnical study for the project and has recommended approval of the project with conditions for the grading and construction of the home. The project drainage and grading has been reviewed by the City Engineer and has been conceptually approved. The numbers have been corrected on the net acreage and the width of the easement. Staff recommended ` approval as conditioned. Planning Commission Minutes APPROVED November 24, 1992 Page 4 Ms. Niles stated that there was one change requested by the applicant on Condition 10. The applicant will be having a contractor propose the grading and construction operation plan and submit for building plan check at the same time and they are requesting that the Planning Commission allow the grading and construction plan to be submitted along with the building permit plan rather than prior to the submittal of the Plans. Ms. Niles stated that she does not have a problem with that as long as the applicant understands that it may take Staff some time to review the plan and then additional time to get the building permit reviewed in plan check before issuance of the building permit. OPENED PUBLIC HEARING Lisa Webster Puri, 12775 Viscaino Road, Architect, stated that the applicants have lived in the house for several years and had suffered earth quake damage and continued living in the house. She discussed the design of the house, trying to keep it as low as possible. The only part of the house that is two story is a part over the garage which is the lowest roof level. She discussed the two significant oaks; one used for screening and the other oak was by the pool house. They have tried to keep the design simple and have spoken to their neighbors regarding the design. The one concern her clients had regarding the site was that it is very noisy. It is a beautiful site, however, it was a tremendous impact from the freeway there and they have situated the house to face north east so it is situated away from the freeway. There is a partial berm that the Bella's put up a few years ago to shield themselves from the noise. They are concerned if the path is put right below the berm which does not connect with the existing path to the east and would require people using the path go from the path which is lower, down closer to the existing street up the hill on to the lower side of the berm and then down the hill again to the west and that was why they proposed the path at street edge where it is shown on Pian. The discussion of the path was regarding the impact of privacy on the property. Bob Stutz, 25310 Elena Road, Pathway Committee, recommended that the path be placed adjacent to the property line and the road right-of-way which puts it below the berm and in back of the Eucalyptus trees and Oleanders which gives users protection from speeding motorists. Steve Bella, 11921 Hilltop Drive, applicant, discussed the issues of the berm height, privacy and the pathway. He stated that the street is a dead end and they do not have a great deal of traffic and the speeds are not that fast, however, if a pathway is proposed up above and come back down where the existing driveway is now you have to drop back down to street level and that is a very blind edge. In their plans, they intended to make the driveway more visible. VJ Planning Commission Minutes APPROVED November 24,1992 Page 5 Chairman Pahl mentioned that when other projects in that area come in, hopefully, the pathways will be moved off the street. Commissioner Stutz stated that they were not asking for a path on his property but asking for one in the road right-of-way and it would be at a level where it would be visible to the applicant and he does have the right to build a higher berm on his property. She discussed privacy and asked Mr. Bella why he did not push his house back 20' more as he is at the highest part of the ridge. Mrs. Puri stated that the house itself was designed so that the outside spaces on the hill were usable by the Bella's and the only shelter you get from the noise is from behind the house. Jeff Peterson stated that it was his understanding of the berm that years ago the Town stopped the Bella's from building the berm and the Bella's were told they needed a variance to construct the berm. Regarding the pathway and its location, pathways immediately adjacent to the edge of pavement do not last because around the rest of the world a gravel strip along the edge of pavement is a shoulder. Bob Stutz stated that the dissipater would have to be moved if the path was moved and Mrs. Puri was already aware of the situation. CLOSED PUBLIC HEARING Commissioner Ellinger would like to see the path drawn on the Plan. He would also like to see the berm in place for privacy and noise abatement for the residents Commissioner Comiso discussed Condition 11 and yellow lined the plan to show the path. Commissioner Schreiner discussed the letter from Mr. Wells regarding landscaping and it was decided that Staff would handle the landscaping. Commissioner Stutz asked if they could put the rest of the house at a single level rather than putting a two story on the ridge; removing the second story over the garage and putting it down at ground level somewhere. No discussion followed. Commissioner Simmu. discussed the two stories and he felt that the property technically could be called a ridge line, as it was a fairly large, broad slope and the house was far enough back that it would not appear to be on top of a ridge. The two story area was only over a portion of the house and not over the entire house. MOTION SECONDED AND PASSED: Motion by Commissioner Ellinger and seconded 4 by Commissioner Cheng to approve with the conditions as noted with one modification Planning Commission Minutes APPROVED November 24,1992 Page 6 IJ to Condition 11, "A Type IfB path shall be installed as yellow lined on the Plan', and the remainder of the condition would remain as is. AYES: Chairman Pahl, Commissioners Schreiner, Simmu, Cheng, Comiso, Ellinger & Schreiner NOES: Commissioner Stutz This item will appear on the City Council consent calendar on December 2,1992. 4.3 LANDS OF VISO, 28620 Matadero Creek Court; A request for a Site Development Permit for a New Residence, Pool and Spa. Ms. Niles introduced this item stating that this project was for a new residence on Lot 12 of the Matadero Creek Subdivision stating that the lot does slope away at an angle from the end of the cul-de-sac. There were some conditions that were placed on the Matadero Creek Subdivision that the development of all the lots needed to be in conformance with and each lot has some different specific conditions. The standards set forth for the subject site, Lot 12, were modified by the City Council to allow the lot to be developed to the MDA and MFA as calculated by the Zoning Code. The Matadero Creek documentation should have been amended to show that those numbers were approved to be changed, however, that was not done. Past correspondence and City Council minutes support the approved changes. Some of the other conditions on the lot were the maximum elevation of the structure was set at 600 feet. The project is proposing the upper most elevation of the roof line at 584 feet. The landscaping was required to be integrated with the existing meadows. This has been added to the conditions of approval for review at the landscape site development stage. The building was required to be integrated with the existing trees on the site. The house has been designed to be constructed between the trees. No trees are proposed to be removed, however, one 24" oak on the north east side of the garage is proposed to be relocated. The Commission should discuss an appropriate siting for the relocation of that tree. Ms. Niles stated that the project had been planned to include all outdoor living area that the property owner wished on the lot which was decking and a pool. No pool house was requested. There is less than 100 sq. ft. of development area that could be utilized in the future on the lot. The maximum height of the structure from natural or finished grade is proposed at 27'. The house is setback at least 170' from the road. The view of the front of the house from the end of the cul-de-sac will be of the house stepping down towards the left side of the lot, with the view of a maximum 27 height on the left side of the house and 17 on the right side of the house. The project was required, as is every project in Town, to stake the building envelope and the building height on the project at least 10 days prior to the Public Hearing, however, the applicant did not stake the property. Ms. Niles stated that because it was Planning Commission Minutes APPROVED November 24,1992 Page 7 kir difficult for the Commission and the Council to make a determination on the appropriateness of the proposed height, bulk, mass and siting of the house without the story poles and the staking poles, the Commission had the option to continue this to allow the applicant to put the poles up before discussing the project or the Commission may choose to discuss the project and then continue the application to allow viewing of the poles when the applicant puts them up. Chairman Pahl stated that he knew of at least one member of the Council who was very concerned that the story poles always be up. Commissioner Stutz agreed with continuance and also asked for a letter regarding moving a 24" oak as she was not sure the tree could survive a move. The consensus was to continue to allow the applicant to put up story and staking poles. The applicant was asked if they were willing to accept a continuance to December 9th. Mr. Owen agreed with the continuance, however, stated that the reason the project was not staked was because they had modified the location of the house on the property and by the time they had the plan re -drawn and resubmitted, along with people being out ill, they were not able to stake the property. He still asked to be heard tonight. Ms. Niles stated that the applicant was notified three weeks ahead of time that the building needed to be staked 10 days prior to the meeting. The design was only moved slightly and the design was requested to be changed before that date in order to accommodate not removing any trees. The applicant had adequate time to accomplish the staking. Mr. Owen accepted the continuance and said he would provide a letter regarding the transplanting of the oak tree mentioned by Commissioner Stutz. IT WAS MOVED BY CONSENSUS to continue this item to the December 9, 1992 meeting and noted this would appear first on the Agenda. Chairman Pahl mentioned that Lands of Harker was not staked. He asked Mr. Owen if he wanted this to be continued also. Mr. Owen stated that he would like this to be heard and the reason they did not stake this was because they have been running into the dedication easement so what they wanted to do tonight was to discuss the dedicated easement and what direction they should be going and then have the project return. LANDS OF CHAN, 11621 Rebecca Lane; A request for a Site Development Permit for a Pool and Variance. Ms. Niles introduced this item stating that the Site Development Permit and Variance were requested for a pool and decking to exceed the allowed MDA for the lot. The applicant purchased the lot in 1989 after there had been an approved development Planning Commission Minutes APPROVED November 24,1992 Page 8 i V project by a previous owner which included the pool and decking added to the proposed location now. The previous Plan was approved prior to adoption of the Towns new standards for development area and floor area so the applicant thought he was purchasing the lot with the approved building area for the pool and decking. When going through the review of the project, however, for being able to make the findings to grant a variance, Staff was unable to come up with findings that would show that there were unusual or unique or hardship circumstances of the lot that would be able to be made to grant the variance. She felt that the applicant understood this, however, he would like to discuss the application with the Planning Commission since the lot was large, the area had already been graded and it was a project that the applicant thought could be built. Commissioner Sinunu asked at what stage was the permit process for the pool when he bought the house. Ms. Niles responded stating that it was the applicant's understanding that the pool and the decking had been approved with the Site Development Permit for the house, however, only the house had been constructed. The applicant was not aware that the approval for the pool would expire if the building permit was not pulled and construction started. OPENED PUBLIC HEARING Bruce Chan, 2317 Broadway, Redwood City, Architect, presented photos and stated that J the applicant did not disagree with the MDA, however, the house was constructed before the new MDA standard. They would be willing to remove some hardscape. He discussed other lots on Rebecca Lane. He stated that Staff had asked if the design could be modified. He discussed the driveway and the problems with parking on the street. With regards to the decking, if you cut back, you would end up with something that does not look very good. He thought that the variance request was reasonable given the circumstances. In discussing the photos presented, he stated that the concrete decking that was in the left hand corner was the decking that they were proposing to remove and the patch in the panoramic shot was were the pool would go. Commissioner Ellinger discussed the hardscape around the pool and asked if Mr. Chan had considered reducing the hardscape down significantly and putting landscape up close to the pool to reduce the MDA and for privacy. Mr. Chan stated that the area around the pool constituted 800 sq. ft. so even if they were to remove the pool decking completely they would still be asking for a variance for the pool area itself. CLOSED PUBLIC HEARING Commissioner Schreiner discussed people caught in change. The Commission was i trying to be fair to all, however, she thought the variance request was considerable. Planning Commission Minutes APPROVED November 24,1992 Page 9 Commissioner Sinunu discussed the rural atmosphere in Town and the visibility of this property. He stated that Los Altos Hills was a rustic area and he felt that to allow more development than allowable was not desirable. MOTION SECONDED: Motion by Commissioner Schreiner and seconded by Commissioner Sinunu to deny the variance. Commissioner Stutz asked that it be returned for redesign. Commissioner Comiso agreed with Commissioner Stutz and felt that the applicant was caught in change. She stated that this project would be over the MDA and MFA no matter what was done to it. She thought this could be redesigned, however, does not want to send the residents away without giving them some idea of where to go. Commissioner Simmu and Schreiner agreed to continue for redesign if they could reduce the need for a variance on the project. MOTION WITHDRAWN. MOTION SECONDED AND PASSED: Motion by Commissioner Ellinger and seconded by Commissioner Comiso to continue for redesign. AYES: Chairman Pahl, Commissioners Cheng, Comiso, Ellinger, Schreiner, Sinunu & Stutz NOES: None The applicant accepted the continuance for redesign. 4.5 LANDS OF HARKER, 11893 Francemont Drive; A request for a Site Development Permit for a New Residence, Pool and Spa. It was stated that because the story poles were not in place this item would only be discussed briefly and continued. Ms. Niles stated that she requested discussing the issues set forth in the staff report regarding required right-of-way dedication widths; the requirement for a one story dwelling on this lot; and the additional geologic and engineering conditions and revisions necessary. She recommended that it be continued to the first available meeting to allow the applicant to return with a redesign for review and recommendation. At this time Staff was requesting that the Planning Commission provide Staff and the applicant direction regarding the existing Town right-of-way policy, and discuss the proposed house design for determination of conformance with 4W the map condition that required the house on this lot to be one story. Another item to Planning Commission Minutes APPROVED November 24,1992 Page 10 be discussed was the issue of the pathway even if the house does not develop on the top of the cul-de-sac for continuing the pathway up to the top of the project. The Town's Geologist recommended that the applicant's geotechnical consultant complete additional geotechnical evaluations and provide appropriate design recommendations as necessary prior to approval of the subject application. The continuance would allow the necessary time for the additional evaluations. It was mentioned that it was very difficult to understand the project from the map provided. Mr. Peterson reviewed the right-of-way polity. The tentative map for the Francemont subdivision was approved prior to the right-of-way policy being approved and the final map was recorded after the policy was approved by the Council. This subdivision was approved at the time that the policy was being generated and approved. The policy stated that the Planning Commission would determine the future plan width of an existing private road. Normally that is done at the time the first Site Development comes in on a road where other residents have not been seen before or at the time of a subdivision. The policy also states that under no circumstances will a right-of-way width or a private road be less than 40' and to determine that 40' is appropriate the Planning Commission would have to make findings regarding traffic, safety and access as well as some other issues. The right-of-way policy also discusses the fact that road ways serving four lots or less can be classified as a short cul-de-sac and what that does is to allow you to set a right-of-way width of 50' without findings. 50' is the actual minimum that can be recommended to the City Council without findings. Commissioner Stutz asked Ms. Niles why she wanted to re -discuss the pathway from the end of the road way to the top of the hill and Ms. Niles stated that it was because the condition stated that only if the project develops above the 700' elevation that the pathway would be required so if the applicant were to develop where the house is proposed now you would assume that the path would not be required to be developed. Commissioner Stutz discussed Condition 4, dated 11/16/88. She felt that the intent when this was subdivided was to get a path up to Wind Mill Meadows and she does not care where they put the house, however, she would not see this pass without a path up to Wind Mill Meadows. Mr. Peterson stated that currently there are 4 parcels accessing above the cul-de-sac bulb on Francemont and it was his understanding that Parcel C which the Harker application is on could not be further subdivided. As far as the other lots, he did not know what was the potential of those being subdivided. He also stated that the Fire Department did not have any additional requirements. Mr. Peterson discussed road dedication and potential advantages; one being additional open space. OPENED PUBLIC HEARING Bob Owen, 445 S. San Antonio Road, questioned the difference between a private drive j and a private road and the ordinance relating to same. Also discussed the topography �I Planning Commission Minutes APPROVED November 24,1992 Page 11 and the placement of the path. He was seeking direction from the Commission. The project will be on Parcel C. He stated that they had two options; they could have built on the lower portion where they are now or on the upper portion which would have entailed a long driveway up a very steep slope. Commissioner Ellinger asked about the path that Commissioner Stutz brought up earlier and needed Mr. Owen's opinion on how wide the roads would be, not for traffic but for parking. The path that would go into the open space area was not just a continuing path but more like a trail head. You could come up to that area, drop off your car and go off hiking. He asked Mr. Owen what he would do regarding parked cars. Mr. Owen stated that he had only been to the area a few times on weekends and had never seen cars up there. He was not sure what access the people have to the top now or how much it was used. Commissioner Stutz thought that the parking would have to be down on the cul-de-sac. She thought the reason no one was using the path was that no one knows about it. She thought that there should be a sign at the cul-de-sac stating that all path users must leave their cars down below. Steve Boboricken, 11870 Francemont Road, neighbor across the street to project, ( discussed the road from the project driveway stating that two other houses access that road. He questioned where the driveway comes in because there is a blind corner coming down that road. Jean Struthers, Environmental Design and Protection Committee, requested that when the new map is required that it show the path easement and that there be a requirement to roughen that section of the existing pavement. She was also concerned about the trees and felt that at least on the building site part those trees should be mapped. She also discussed the beauty of Wind Mill pastures and the natural plants there. Commissioner Stutz in discussing staking, stated that Lots 1 and 2 could be developed by one person. They had the path coming out along the creek at the back of the furthest lot in and the proposed new owner wanted the path staked so he could see where it was located. This staking had nothing to do with Lot 3. Commissioner Comiso questioned the stakes. She asked that the staking be looked at before this was brought back to be heard. Steve McDonald, 257 Albacore, Los Altos, owner of the property to the left side of Francembnt, discussed that the pathway signing and where cars might park was a concern of his. Kit -Mur Smith, 11880 Francemont, neighbor, was concerned with the pathway. She had a concern for a bulldozer by her property that appeared to be starting a pathway Planning Commission Minutes APPROVED November 24, 1992 Page 12 somewhere. She said she would have strong objections to having any structure built so high in that area since you would have to cut down some trees which she values. She also discussed the proposed driveway and felt it was a potentially dangerous place to have a driveway because it is a blind corner. Commissioner Comiso explained to Ms. Smith that the plans were available to her at Town Hall and nothing would be decided this evening. CLOSED PUBLIC HEARING Chairman Pahl stated that the discussion was regarding the driveway or road easement and one story element only at this time and not the pathway. Commissioner Ellinger stated that regarding the roadway easement, he would like to see it mapped out on the Plan so they can see that two cars could pass or an emergency vehicle could get through and that there be sufficient space along the side of the road for parallel parking. He did not want a graded out parking easement for a pathway and he wanted to keep it very low key. Regarding the driveway, his preference would be to move it off the apex of this turn. Regarding two story, he would like to see this a two story. Commissioner Simmu asked for clarification of requesting either a 40' or 50' rightof- way. Mr. Peterson stated that what the right-of-way policy stated was that the absolute minimum was 40' or 20' half street right-of-way. Commissioner Simmu also had a concern regarding the soil and wanted to make sure this was addressed. Commissioner Stutz stated that she thought that the entrance to the driveway was ideal. She felt that the safety of the driveway could be fixed possibly with mirrors. She also stated that the right-of-way being requested did not mean that they would change the amount of blacktop on the road. Commissioner Comiso stated that she was with Mr. Owen one week ago at City Council when they went through this very same thing with Alta Lane North. She felt that the feeling she received from that meeting was if they could possibly take this road right-of- way, they wanted it. She felt that when Council put the one story house in the conditions they never thought the house would be built in this location and that they thought it would be built on the ridge. She felt that the house flowed with the land. Commissioner Schreiner discussed the geological constraints. She would like special attention paid to 23.1, 23.2, and 23.3 by the geologist. She also stated that she was concerned with the three story element and would not like to see more than two stories. Mr. Peterson stated with regard to the sewer, that the sewer as proposed is the service that is coming out of an existing sewer line in the street already. 1J Planning Commission Minutes APPROVED November 24,1992 Page 13 Commissioner Cheng stated that she felt the two story house should be fine on this lot and felt the driveway was in the correct place. Chairman Pahl stated that he had a concern with a three story element and when a house steps down the property, you can, without good design, create a three story element. The east elevation of this house looked very three storyish and the three story element needed to be addressed. He felt the two story element was very appropriate in this case, however, he did not feel a 50'right-of-way was necessary. Mr. Owen discussed the neighbor's concern with trees being cut down and stated that they tried to address this and placed the house where there were no trees. He stated that the garage on the right hand side of the house was depressed and the driveway was above the garage. He felt this would not be a three story element. Brief break at 9:45 p.m. LANDS OF WANG, 25706 Elena Road; A request for approval of a Negative Declaration and a Tentative Parcel Map for a two -lot subdivision. Mr. Peterson introduced this item stating that the applicant was requesting that the `, Town approve a Tentative Parcel map to subdivide a 3.65 acre parcel into two lots. The site is located in the northwest corner of the intersection of Elena Road and Vinedo Lane. The average slope of the parcel was 12.4% and has a lot unit factor of 3.02. Parcel 1 contains the large existing house which is proposed to remain. The house extends into the existing backyard building setback line to the north by approximately 18'. The building in the southwest corned of Parcel i is proposed to be removed. The shape of Parcel 1 could be described as a "dogged panhandle', preserving the existing driveway access to Elena Road. Parcel 2 is located in the southwest corner of the subdivision, with street frontage on Video Lane only. Two existing driveways access the Parcel, one entering the corral and the other and the other entering Parcel 2 along near the western subdivision boundary. This paved driveway along the western boundary line is proposed to remain as the access for Parcel 2. The barn within the 30' setback line along the eastern property line is proposed to be removed. The Commission was requested to review the Initial Study and Recommended Negative Declaration for Certification and recommendation to the City Council. Additionally, the Commission was requested to review the two lot Tentative Map for determination of appropriate conditions for recommendation to the City Council. Issues to be discussed as stated in the Staff Report: Right-of-way, Access, Drainage, Sanitary Sewer, Pathways, and Streets. Mr. Peterson' stated that with the Recommended Conditions of Approval, Staff believed that the subdivision was appropriate for recommendation to the Council for approval. Planning Commission Minutes APPROVED November 24,1992 Page 14 Commissioner Comiso discussed the "Street" category and fixing Vinedo Lane, stating that there were 20 houses served by this, and she asked if this was not a private agreement to fix the road with all of the residents or would we ask the applicant to fix only up to the end of his property. Mr. Peterson responded stating that what he recommended was that the repairs be along the frontage of the subdivision and not extend up the hill beyond the subdivision. Commissioner Sinunu asked if Lot 1 was to be subdivided and in order to calculate the MDA and MFA he asked if you counted the dogleg portion. Mr. Peterson responded stating the he believed that the driveway was counted within the first 100' from the garage. Commissioner Simmu also asked if the present house on Lot 1 was within the MFA if the property were to be subdivided. Mr. Peterson stated that he had discussed this with the applicant's engineer and felt he could address that when he addressed the Commission. Commissioner Schreiner stated that they were seeing more and more homes coming in on Vinedo Lane and they needed to address the question on widening this road. She asked about the fence which appears to be in the 30' right-of-way. Mr. Peterson stated that looking at the plan, it appears that the fence was actually outside of the right-of- way and on private property. Commissioner Schreiner stated that the barn was to be removed and the pool house and the secondary house were to remain. She asked for the square footage and if they had full utilities. Mr. Peterson stated the structures to remain do have full utilities and he stated the applicant's representative could answer the question regarding square footage. Commissioner Ellinger stated that he did not know why anyone would want to subdivide this property. He asked if Staff had looked into the creation of an open space in the course of this process. Mr. Peterson answered that at looking at the property with the current amount of development of hardscape that was on it, creation of open space would be accomplished on it by the removal of a lot of the hardscape. It was his understanding that the applicant planned to decrease the amount of hardscape on the property. OPENED PUBLIC HEARING Michael Liu, 666 Kingsway, Los Altos, applicant's engineer, answering Commissioner Simmu's question regarding the size of the lot after the building was removed: the main house would have a total of 6925 sq. ft. after the removal of the barn and garage. To answer Commissioner Schreiner's question regarding the size of the pool house, it was 973 sq. ft. and the secondary dwelling was 728 sq. ft. Both dwellings would remain and have full utilities and neither units are used as rentals. V) Planning Commission Minutes APPROVED November 24, 1992 Page 15 Commissioner Stutz asked why the barn was being torn down and was told that there are no horses and the barn had not been used for some time. Mr. Liu agreed with all of the Recommended Conditions, however, he asked for clarification on #3 on page 8 and #13 on page 10. He asked about having to move the fence when the path went through. He was told that eventually they would have to move the fence or open it up. Chairman Pahl stated that he had a concern regarding Elena Road and having the driveway access off of Elena Road and asked if there were any thoughts to having Lots 1 and 2 access off of Vinedo Lane. Mr. Liu stated that this entrance was probably the oldest entrance in the Elena Road area. He thought the entrance was built about the same time as the house, about 90 years ago. He did not want to relocate the entrance. Commissioner Ellinger asked why they wanted to subdivide the property. Mr. Liu thought by subdividing the property it would improve it. Commissioner Ellinger stated that he was concerned and he felt that this was a prestigious location and a lot would be lost when the property was subdivided. He also stated that he did not like lift stations. Commissioner Comiso did not fell an explanation from the applicant regarding why they wished to subdivide was necessary unless the Commissioner felt there was a reason that this land should not be subdivided and she saw no reason. CLOSED PUBLIC HEARING Negative Declaration: MOTION SECONDED AND PASSED: Motion by Commissioner Comiso and seconded by Commissioner Cheng to recommend to the City Council to certify the Negative Declaration. AYES: Chairman Pahl, Commissioners Ellinger, Schreiner, Simmu, Stutz, Cheng & Comiso NOES: None Recommended Conditions: Geotechnical: No changes Land and Easement Dedication: No changes Public Utilities: No changes Planning Commission Minutes APPROVED November 24, 1992 Page 16 J Improvements: Commissioner Schreiner stated that she had one change which was to improve Vinedo Lane with an additional 5' pavement. Commissioner Stutz stated that she did not think they should be required to put this in when they already have most of the pavement on their side of the road. Commissioner Schreiner asked that if the pavement could at least be expanded 2 1/2 feet as she was very Concerned with the increased traffic that was continuing to come down this road. Commissioner Stutz did not feel that there would be a great deal in increased traffic. Commissioners, with the exception of Commissioner Schreiner, felt that a 2' increase would be sufficient for cars to pass easily and should be taken from the other side of the road. Planning and Zoning: Commissioner Sinunu had concerns as to how the property was being divided. He stated that it was being described as a 90 year old home which would be left with no front yard and no back yard. It would be left with a driveway going up to it and two rather small side yards and any stateliness would be taken away from it by having this other lot taken away. It may be that this lot could be subdivided, however, he did not know if this was the appropriate way to divide the property. Commissioner Stutz stated that she did not think they would see any difference in the back. The pool area had been developed and landscaped and if there were future development on Lot 2 it would be a house in the middle of the paddock area in front of the bam. J Commissioner Comiso did not think there was any other way to subdivide this lot unless you remove the house. Chairman Pahl stated that what he disliked about the subdivision was that they were grand fathering in a setback variation and there was nothing the Commission could do. If he had the ability he would not like the property to be subdivided until the setback was cured, however, by statute he was not permitted to make that a condition. Commissioner Ellinger asked if they specifically were authorizing the particular location of this dotted line. The response was that they were recommending that the subdivision be approved along the dotted line which was the newly proposed lot line and that was the application. Ms. Niles stated for the record that when the house is proposed for Site Development on Parcel 2, the project would need to conform to standards. Commissioner Stutz asked while going through the General Plan that they look at the law that they have had in effect for a long time regarding facilities. She felt that you did not need all of the facilities to have a kitchen when you could have such things as microwave ovens, etc. and could have a kitchen in any room and the Town would have no control. She did not understand why they would ask to have facilities taken out of a Planning Commission Minutes APPROVED November 24,1992 Page 17 pool house just because it was in a secondary dwelling. She would like this considered with the General Plan. MOTION SECONDED AND PASSED: Motion by Commissioner Comiso and seconded by Commissioner Cheng to recommend to the City Council approval of the Tentative Parcel Map with the findings and conditions as recommended by Staff in the document with correction of address on the Staff Report to 25706 Elena Road. AYES: Chairman Pahl, Commissioners Cheng, Comiso, Ellinger, Schreiner & Stutz NOES: Commissioner Simmu This item will be on the City Council agenda for December 16,1992. 4.7 Household Hazardous Waste Element & Source Reduction Element; Review of the Recommended Negative Declaration and Preliminary Draft of the Household Hazardous Waste Element of the Source Reduction and Recycling Element and General Plan to add the above two elements to the Town's General Plan. kv Commissioner Sinunu stated that it appeared to be a fairly reasonable proposal, however, he felt that it did not need such detail. Commissioner Stutz asked if this was mandated by the State in its present condition and asked if there were any additions or subtractions made as a Town. Mr. Peterson responded stating that the document as they see it was a standard format used by the County and reviewed by the State. There was no public input in this matter. MOTION SECONDED AND PASSED: Motion by Commissioner Simmu and seconded by Commissioner Stutz to recommend approval of the Negative Declaration and passed unanimously. MOTION SECONDED AND PASSED: Motion by Commissioner Simmu and seconded by Commissioner Stutz to approve the amendment to the General Plan and passed unanimously. Commissioner Ellinger discussed the wording Negative Declaration and suggested modifying the wording to be a positive statement versus a negative statement. Also, he suggested a shorter version of this Element. It would be recommended to the City Council that brief wording be added to the Negative Declaration that would clarify that the programs proposed in the elements would be a benefit to the Town rather than just Planning Commission Minutes APPROVED November 24,1992 Page 18 stating that there would be no significant negative impacts to the Town and the surrounding area. 5. NEW BUSINESS As an information item, Commissioner Ellinger stated that they will conduct a full scale communications test December 5, 1992. All are invited to the Heritage House at 8:00 a.m. Commissioner Cheng discussed the entrance into St. Nicholas and the left turn into this property. She was concerned for the traffic problems at Voorhees. Mr. Peterson suggested bringing this up to the City Council. 6. OLD BUSINESS 6.1 Fences, Basements and Recommended Plant List Study Session scheduled for December 15 at 5:30 p.m. will include "portable features". 6.2 MDA/MFA discussion will be postponed until after the Housing Element completion. 6.3 Review of General Plan a. Chairman Pahl stated that there had been a request by Mayor Tryon for the completion of the General Plan in a short amount of time. Chairman Pahl suggested sending the Council the completed Elements one at a time, however, the Mayor requested the completed Plan as soon as possible. Chairman Pahl asked if the Element assignments were agreeable with all. It was pointed out that they need not rewrite the Elements but make modifications. A special study session of the Housing Element will be scheduled for Thursday, February 4th at 5:30 p.m. Ms. Niles stated that this discussion was very pertinent to the issues of completing the General Plan and the Housing Element and she knew that the Council wanted input at their next meeting on what could be determined as the necessary process that they would have to go through in order to get something to them for the Housing Element in particular, by November but hopefully by June and for the remainder of the General Plan as well. She requested that the Planning Commission make, for the record, statements that they felt would help to accomplish the General Plan review in the detail and the quality they wanted, and that they felt that it may be necessary to get assistance from San Jose State students or to hire a consultant or to add staff or anything else they would like to do. The Commission stated that there would be no way to read all the elements of the entire General Plan and do an effective job, however, if they could spend all their efforts on li Planning Commission Minutes APPROVED November 24, 1992 Page 19 the Housing Element only between now and the end of January, which would be a reasonable time frame, that they could put together a very nice Housing Element. Ms. Niles was asked if that was a reasonable request, to put the rest of the Elements aside for now and only work on the Housing Element until the end of January. Ms. Niles stated that there would be a lot more detail than they would be able to finish discussing by their February 4th meeting. She noted that she had forwarded to the Commission the deficiency letter that was received in 1988 which has about 3 pages of detail. There have been modifications and revisions added to the government code regarding the Housing Element since then that they would have to address also and Ms. Niles stated that she felt that they would not have any resolution at the February 4th meeting, however, she felt they could submit something to the Council by the end of February or the middle of March. Chairman Pahl asked if it was the Commission's desire that they go back to Council stating that they would like to focus solely on the Housing Element and have it completed by the end of February. All members were in favor of this suggestion. Chairman Pahl asked Ms. Niles to send a memo indicating that was the desire of the Commission and they would reschedule the remaining Elements after that time. tIt was suggested that everyone would come to the next meeting with their comments on `. the first ten pages of the Housing Element. Commissioner Ellinger requested that the General Plan be put on a disk. Ms. Niles stated that she was in the process of accepting bids to have the General Plan put on a disk. b. December 9th the Commission will review the first ten pages of the Housing Element and if time permitted they would review the Recreation Element. APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES OF SEPTEMBER 23 AND OCTOBER 14,1992. MOTION SECONDED AND PASSED: Motion by Commissioner Comiso and seconded by Commissioner Schreiner to approve the minutes of September 23, 1992 and passed unanimously with Commissioner Comiso and Sinunu abstaining. MOTION SECONDED AND PASSED: Motion by Commissioner Comiso and seconded by Commissioner Schreiner to approve the minutes of October 14, 1992 and passed unanimously. 8. REPORT FROM THE CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF NOVEMBER 18,1992 8.1 Commissioner Sinunu was the representative and discussed Lands of McFadden and the fact that the Council was concerned that the Commission had a variance on the Consent Calendar; discussion of the General Plan review; requested Planning Commission Minutes November 24, 1992 Page 20 APPROVED having a Council member at the Planning Commission meetings; discussion on Adobe Creek; four way stop at Taaffe and Altamont which they where not in favor of; Lands of Movassete pulled by Council Member Dauber, however approved his second home on Zappettini Court with substantial discussion. Commissioner Simmu attended the Housing and Community Development Committee meeting stating it was very interesting and there would be some events planned for January and February regarding funding. 9. REPORT FROM THE SITE DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE MEETING OF NOVEMBER 17,1992 9.1 LANDS OF FONG, 25891 Fremont Road; A request for a Site Development Permit for a Landscape. Approved with conditions. 9.2 LANDS OF CAMPI,12720 Viscaino Road; A request for a Site Development Permit for a Pool and Pool House. Approved with conditions. 10. ADJOURNMENT MOTION SECONDED AND PASSED: Motion by Commissioner Stutz, seconded by Commissioner Ellinger and passed by consensus to adjourn the meeting at 11:08 p.m. Respectfully submitted, LaniLonberger Planning Secretary 1j FIN