Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout01/11/1995%Pwf Minutes of a Regular Meeting Town of Los Altos Hills PLANNING COMMISSION cc: January 11, 1995, 7:00 p.m. nbers, 26379 Fremont Road ROLL CALL AND PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE APPROVED 1/25/95 The Planning Commission meeting was called to order at 7:00 p.m. in the Council Chambers at Town Hall. Present: Chairman Schreiner, Commissioners Cheng, Finn, McMahon, Gottlieb & Stutz Absent: Commissioner Doran Staff: Linda Niles, Planning Director; Suzanne Davis, Planner; Sheryl Kolf, Assistant Engineer; Lani Lonberger, Planning Secretary The Commissioners welcomed their newest member, Steve Finn, to the Planning Commission. 2. PRESENTATIONS FROM THE FLOOR None. 3. CONSENT CALENDAR 3.1 LANDS OF HORTON, 26030 Altamont Road, APN 182-25-001 and 182- 25-008 Altamont Road (181 -94 -LLA); A request for a Lot Line Adjustment. (This application will be continued to an undetermined date and re -noticed once requested information has been submitted). 4. PUBLIC HEARINGS 4.1 LANDS OF NGUYEN, 11632 Rebecca Lane (82-94-ZP-SD); A request for a Site Development Permit for a pool. Chairman Schreiner asked if the applicants are notified regarding access to the property as Cotton's report noted that they could not gain access to the property. In 4ftow discussing William Cotton's report, Commissioner Gottlieb requested Mr. Cotton Planning Commission Minutes APPROVED 1/25/95 January 11, 1995 Page 2 specify the area of approval for the pool noting that it is in a Human Habitation Setback asking that this be added to the conditions of approval. OPENED PUBLIC HEARING Larry Serda, Anthony Pools, 905 Commercial Street, San Jose, discussed plans, sheets 1 (construction drawings) and 2 (showing detail previously requested); pool location as shown on the Plot Plan; and decking around the pool. It was noted that there will be stepping stones leading from the house to the pool. Dr. Nguyen, applicant, replied to Commissioner Stutz' question noting the hardscape was shown on the original addition plans and the hardscape for the pool equipment was counted into the MDA. Kati Stella, pathways committee, noted the request by the Pathways Committee to upgrade the path to a Type IIB on Dawson Drive. This is #6 in the conditions of approval. CLOSED PUBLIC TESTIMONY Ms. Niles commented that the corrected worksheet #2 was not received, however she was satisfied that the applicant was within the MDA numbers. Commissioner Stutz discussed condition #5 d, suggesting wording to the effect that equipment shall be fenced with wood on all four sides and roofed for noise mitigation. Dr. Nguyen noted that the pool equipment will be covered. MOTION SECONDED, AMENDED AND PASSED: Motion by Commissioner Stutz, seconded by Commissioner McMahon and amended to approve the Site Development Permit for a pool with changes to #5 d "Equipment shall be fenced with wood on all four sides and roofed for noise mitigation"; requesting an amendment to William Cotton's letter specifying the area of approval for the pool is in a Human Habitation Setback; and requiring a recorded deed restriction regarding the MFA/MDA figures, if it was not included in the original application. AYES: Chairman Schreiner, Commissioners Cheng, Finn, Stutz, McMahon & Gottlieb NOES: None ABSENT: Commissioner Doran This item will appear on the City Council consent calendar February 1, 1995 `r1r+ Planning Commission Minutes APPROVED 1/25/05 January 11, 1995 Page 3 4.2 LANDS OF WISE, 24301 Elise Court (187 -94 -SD -VAR); A request for a Site Development Permit for grading, and a variance to allow grading within 10 feet of the property line. Ms. Niles noted there were several Commissioners (Finn, Cheng, Schreiner) who could not gain access to the property due to a gate and a dog. She commented that the Commission could hear the application, taking testimony and continue their decision to the next meeting to allow them to visit the site, if they felt it was appropriate. Commissioner Finn did not feel it would be necessary to continue the application. OPENED PUBLIC HEARING Mike Wise, 24301 Elise Court, was asked why the Quarry put him in this position. Mr Wise did not feel he had anything to say regarding what was done. Commissioner Stutz noted that the County allows grading to the property line; the Town allows grading up to 10 feet from the property line. Mr. Wise noted the MDA was 15,000 square feet and the MFA was 10,500 square feet with a 32% average slope on 3.62 net acres. It was noted that even though the property is sub -dividable, it would not be practical as they would end up to two lots with MDA's of 7,500 square feet and MFA's of 5,000 square feet. They currently have floor area of approximately 5,500 square feet, lot coverage of 9,000 square feet. If they did subdivide the property, they would +`pr have to take out the rear deck, remove the driveway, replacing it with open pavers, and the deck on the out -building would have to be removed as it is too close to the property line. Also, they would never be able to build a pool in the future. Presently, they do have enough MDA and MFA for a secondary dwelling, however access would be a problem. Chairman Schreiner noted that the City Council indicated that they would like the original MDA/MFA figures maintained regardless of the grading. She felt if they did build a secondary dwelling, that the height would be measured from the original grade. Mr. Wise was concerned that if they did sell the property and someone in the future would like to expand, the Commission would be forcing any development in that area to occur on the area that has minimal grading which is closer to the road leading down. This is right in the view corridor of Dr. Walker who is concerned with the preservation of his view. Mr. Wise suggested a compromise in height limits. He noted that the maximum fill would be approximately 15 feet which shows on the plan cross section. Without having any plans, it was difficult for Mr. Wise to suggest a height limit, possibly 20-21 feet. Further discussion ensued regarding the property being subdividable may not be an issue; a deed restriction being required due to the amount of fill (granting a variance); and not giving this applicant any more than anyone else in Town. - 1+W CLOSED PUBLIC TESTIMONY Planning Commission Minutes APPROVED 1/25/95 January 11, 1995 Page 4 '40 Commissioner Stutz was not concerned with the leveling as Vidivich has put the applicant in a difficult situation with the property looking very unnatural. She discussed a secondary dwelling and the amount of fill, trying to make some type of transition between the two properties to look natural. The property would be improved with the grading. Any Planning Commission in the future would have a legal right to deny an application for subdivision on the basis that perhaps the fill did allow the applicant more land if the original contours were not kept. She suggested adding a restriction so that the area to be filled could never be built on so the fill would never contribute to increasing the MDA of MFA. Ms. Niles suggested a discussion as they have not received any information to suggest that this would not be the best place with or without the fill for construction. It may be premature for this type of condition/restriction to be placed on a grading project. Chairman Schreiner asked if the grading was going to be accomplished in such a way that if the applicant in the future wanted to put a structure there, he could. Ms. Niles responded that the fill would be compacted but not compacted for construction. It may be appropriate to add this as a reminder condition that at such time as a structure is planned in that area, there would need to be another soils report which is a standard condition that is required of any structure. Commissioner Gottlieb felt the applicant was not protected from the Vidivich grading. She would normally like to see natural land, however in this case, she did not feel it would change the looks of the area much. She would consider approval only if they put a restriction on MDA and MFA and the percentage of slope would remain the same (prior to fill); everything would be based on the original contours. She agreed with the variance findings. Commissioner Stutz felt condition #5 covered what they are trying to accomplish. Chairman Schreiner noted that the existing topography already has some fill, suggesting "the original topography" wording. Ms. Niles noted that it would depend if they felt this was necessary as the previous fill was only 1-2 feet. Commissioner McMahon had been to the site and after viewing the situation she felt, with all things considered, the existing fill was minor. She was 100% in support of the project. Commissioner Finn commented that he agreed with everyone in that the findings are clear and the variance appropriate. Due to Vidivich, there will be high costs to Mr. Wise to bring his property back to being reasonable. He did not feel this situation was the making of the property owner. He would like to see a reasonable height limitation where a reasonable building could still be built on top of the fill. He was willing to vote on the project this evening. Commissioner Cheng agreed with Commissionei Finn. Both Commissioners were comfortable voting on the project. ,�, Planning Commission Minutes APPROVED 1/25/95 January 11, 1995 Page 5 Chairman Schreiner had no problem with the variance. This was one variance she could support noting this was a very unique situation. She complimented Ms. Niles for her complete analysis of Finding #1. She had no problem with the fill, requesting the MDA and MFA figures to be maintained at the original figures. She did express concern with the possible height of a structure on the fill. Commissioner McMahon noted that the applicant will not be in a better situation due to the grading. She further discussed compacting the fill which would be suitable for a building and the difference between fill and engineered fill. Mr. Wise noted that he needed to compact the fill for stability purposes, hoping to get some of the fill from the Quarry and McCulloch properties to prevent bringing 500 trucks up Stonebrook Drive. Further discussion ensued regarding height limitation. Wording "at the point that it is 15 feet, restrict the height to 20 feet, going up as it moves back off the fill' was suggested or a general statement noting that there may be a height limitation on a new structure in the fill area. Another suggested wording for height limitations was "dependent on the location and the design, the height may be restricted to less than 27 feet". Commissioner Stutz pointed out past problems on lots with height restrictions placed on them. Granting a variance should not give the applicant more than he started with. Condition 5 addresses MDA and MFA but not height. Mr. Wise suggested wording "measured from the original topography but not restricted to less than 20 feet". Ms. Kolf asked if they would be satisfied with wording to the affect that "the home owner or potential home owner be aware that height would be reviewed, looking at both the original topography and the new topography", not stating a height limitation, only stating it would be reviewed. Commissioner Finn noted that the applicant has suggested to have a height maximum of 20 feet at the 15 foot level, going up as you go to less fill. Ms. Niles asked what is scale to go down by? The cross over would be at seven feet from natural grade was suggested. This means fill of seven feet or over, the height maximum would be 20 feet. The Commission agreed with the variance findings. In discussing the conditions of approval, it was noted that #5 would be changed to include recording of a deed restriction and changing "existing" to 'original'. A condition shall be added stating "if a structure is proposed, a new soils report for proper compaction and construction will be required". It was noted that on a grading application, a pathway request is not appropriate. MOTION SECONDED, AMENDED AND PASSED: Motion by Commissioner Stutz, seconded by Commissioner McMahon and amended to approve the Site Development Permit and Variance as amended with changes to #5 to include recording of a deed restriction and changing "existing' to "original", and adding a condition "if a structure is proposed, a new soils report for proper compaction and construction will be *ftw required". Planning Commission Minutes APPROVED 1/25/95 January 11, 1995 Page 6 r40 AYES: Chairman Schreiner, Commissioners Stutz, McMahon, Gottlieb, Cheng & Finn NOES: None This item will appear on the City Council consent calendar February 1, 1995. 4.3 LANDS OF HWONG,12813 Clausen Court (200 -94 -SD); A request for a Site Development Permit for grading for lawn and play area (continued from December 14,1994). 5. REPORT FROM THE CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF JANUARY 4, 1995 5.1 Chairman Schreiner reported the following items were discussed at the January 4th meeting: request for an extension of the expiration date of a Site Development Permit for a new residence, pool and spa for the Lands of Viso; condition amendments for the Lands of Belden, Corrigan and LeBeau; and the Lands of Roley. Commissioner Stutz noted that she would have given a variance for 4,700 square feet of development area if the Roleys had agreed to ] it, however they would not barter. 1/ 5.2 The Planning Commission Representative for January 18th will be Commissioner Gottlieb. 6. NEW BUSINESS The Planning Commission, City Attorney and Staff will hold a joint meeting February 8th at 5:00 p.m. prior to the regular Planning Commission meeting. 7. OLD BUSINESS 7.1 Discussion of the General Plan Open Space Element. The Commission discussed the Open Space Element in length, giving staff changes and direction to make the recommended changes and return with the revised Element for review. Scheduled work session meeting for the Land Use and Scenic Highways Elements for January 19th at 5:30 p.m. 7.2 Color Board. j Planning Commission Minutes APPROVED 1/25/95 January 11, 1995 Page 7 This will be continued to January 30, 1995 at 5:00 p.m. Mrs. Davis will provide a list of homes to be viewed for color before the meeting with reflectivity values noted. 8. APPROVAL OF MINUTES 8.1 Approval of the December 14, 1994 Minutes. MOTION SECONDED AND PASSED BY CONSENSUS: To approve the December 14,1994 minutes with Commissioners Cheng and Finn abstaining and Commissioner Doran absent. 9. REPORT FROM THE SITE DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE MEETINGS OF DECEMBER 20 AND 27,1994. 9.1 LANDS OF CHEW, 28380 Christopher's Lane; A request for a Site Development Permit for landscape and related improvements (continued from November 29,1994). Approved with conditions December 20,1994. 9.2 LANDS OF NAUMANN, 27301 Black Mountain Road; A request for a Site Development Permit for landscape and related improvements. Approved with conditions December 27, 1994. 9.3 LANDS OF LIU, 28635 Matadero Creek Court; A request for a Site Development Permit for landscape and related improvements. Approved with conditions December 27, 1994. 10. ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned by consensus at 9:53 p.m. Res ctfully submitted, Lani Lonberger Planning Secretary ftr