Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout05/10/1995Minutes of a Regular Meeting Approved 5/24/95 Town of Los Altos Hills PLANNING COMMISSION Wednesday, May 10, 1995,7:00 p.m. Council Chambers, 26379 Fremont Road CC: L.aSSettes ii1U-YJ (4 ) 1. ROLL CALL AND PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE The Planning Commission meeting was called to order at 7:05 p.m. in the Council Chambers at Town Hall. Present: Chairman Schreiner, Commissioners Cheng, Doran, Finn, Gottlieb, McMahon & Stutz Staff: Mike Porto, Acting Town Planner; Sheryl Kolf, Assistant Engineer; Susan Manca, Planner; Lani Lonberger, Planning Secretary t ►M: Y�► tau Ye ��t None. None. 4. PUBLIC HEARINGS 4.1 LANDS OF NOGHREY, 27935 Roble Blanco (4-95-ZP-SD); A request for a Site Development Permit for a second story addition and remodel. Staff had nothing further to add to the staff report. Staff clarified that the entire exterior will be removed and put into stucco. The reduction in parking area still provides the required four parking spaces. OPENED PUBLIC HEARING Kambiz Noghrey, 27935 Roble Blanco, applicant, and Glush Dada, 5451 Ambly Drive, San Jose, architect, were available for questions. The small basement of approximately 126 square feet is not being removed;it falls under the definition of a basement thus not ► counted as floor area. Planning Commission Minutes Approved 5/24/95 May 10, 1995 Page 2 A CLOSED PUBLIC TESTIMONY Discussion ensued. There were no trees to be removed. Commissioners Doran, Cheng and Finn had no problems with the small addition noting it was an improvement over the existing situation. Commissioner Stutz commented that presently this was a wood shingle house with very few trees for screening. From Matadero Creek, the house is very visible. She did not agree with the use of a tile roof and stucco exterior suggesting colors with a 30% reflective value so the structure will not be more prominent then it is currently. The applicant could use a ceramic tile roof rather than a red tile roof . Commissioner Stutz noted a pool on the property, however pool equipment is not indicated on the plan. She suggested including a condition of approval for the location of the pool equipment. The applicant noted that there was a portion between the pool and pool equipment enclosed by shrubbery which is not shown on the plan. She further discussed remodels in general. At times they are more extensive than originally approved. She suggested wording for a condition to add for all remodels, "if the remodel requires 2 1/2 or more of the exterior walls to be replaced (total removal of the walls), the plan shall be returned to the Planning Commission for updating (compliance) to current code." Mr. Porto asked if it was her concern that once remodeling is approved and at the start of construction it is found that more of the structure needs to be removed than originally anticipated, the structure would be restructured not in accordance with the approved plans? Commissioner Stutz noted Ab this was the only way they have to update properties to present codes (MDA/MFA requirements) . As an example, if an applicant took down all walls, the MDA would be 5,000 square feet and the MFA would be 4,000 square feet. Commissioner Gottlieb commented that if the structure was not being painted in darker colors, she would request heavy landscaping with large trees for screening. Commissioner McMahon felt the design was excellent, however the area is a rural community and structures should blend with the wooded, hilly terrain as noted in Town ordinances, Design Guidelines and General Plan, keeping a rural flavor. This design does not comply. Chairman Schreiner noted that this house would be prominent when completed because of the architecture. She would like a color restriction and a landscape plan. It was noted that the applicant's choice of colors were a dark gray (charcoal) tile for the roof and a light gray for the stucco. MOTION SECONDED AND PASSED: Motion by Commissioner Cheng and seconded by Commissioner Doran to approve the site development permit for first and second story additions and remodel with the following changes to the conditions of approval: #4, adding that the roof shall be a darker color (charcoal), and the reflectivity value range for the structure shall be between 40% or lower and trim under 50% reflectivity value; #3, landscaping will be reviewed by the Site Development Committee (standard condition wording); add to #17 that no landscaping, lighting or irrigation shall be within five feet of the pathway; add an additional condition with wording to the affect Planning Commission Minutes Approved 5/24/95 May 10, 1995 f Page 3 �r that if the remodel requires 21/2 or more of exterior walls to be replaced, the plan shall be returned to the Planning Commission for updating to present codes. AYES: Chairman Schreiner, Commissioners Stutz, Gottlieb, Cheng, Finn k Doran NOES: Commissioner McMahon This item will be reviewed by the City Council for approval prior to the 21 day appeal period. 4.2 LANDS OF CURLEY,14127 Miranda Road (28-95-ZP-SD); A request for a Site Development Permit for single and two story additions. Staff had nothing further to add to the staff report. Chairman Schreiner questioned Condition #16, asking staff if they knew if it is required or if the dedication will change the development area numbers. Ms. Kolf commented that the numbers reflect a reduction already taken place and the surveyor showed a 30 foot half widths, however she has not had an opportunity to check this against the title report. The report reflects the final numbers regardless. This is a formality making sure the dedication has already taken place. It was noted that the pathway on Miranda was an old path. The applicant would be required to upgrade their portion of the pathway as required currently. OPENED PUBLIC HEARING John Barton, 359 De Leon Avenue, Fremont, architect, discussed the location of the project being in the extreme north west corner of the property approximately 250 feet from Fremont Road. The project is pushing out a little to the front to expand the kitchen and the breakfast nook and pushing out to the rear to expand the dining room, add a music room and bedroom on the ground floor. The existing balcony which comes off the rear of the house is within the rear yard setbacks. The expansion will not encroach into the setback with a small portion of the balcony removed. The end result will provide move privacy for their neighbor. He questioned condition #15 regarding roughening of the driveway and walkway. It was noted that the pathway is only on one side of the street on Miranda Road. The ability to meander the pathway to avoid the power vault and mailboxes was discussed. Mr. Barton noted that the pavement is approximately 20 feet wide. If you have a 30 foot half width from edge of pavement to their property line, there would be 20 feet. They would prefer placing the pathway in front of their landscaping rather than removing the landscaping. The Commission felt they had ample room to move the path back off the road without going into their landscaping. Mr. Barton also questioned #16, noting the dedication has already been recorded in 1957. It was noted that the pool equipment was in an enclosed structure. James Curley, 14127 Miranda Road, applicant, discussed pathway requirements. r.. The Commission requested staff to provide a template of driveway design standards which they felt would be very helpful on future projects. Planning Commission Minutes Approved 5/24/95 , May 10, 1995 Page 4 CLOSED PUBLIC TESTIMONY Discussion ensued with suggested changes to the conditions of approval: #4, changing only the first sentence to read "Existing paint colors shall be used on the additions of the house to match the existing structure'; #7, delete "close to " adding "within 18 feet of the development area and 15 feet of floor area of the maximum levels (etc.); and #15, adding to the second sentence " shall be roughened or removed...",- #16, add "if necessary"; and adding an additional condition noting "if the remodel requires 21 /2 or more of exterior walls to be replaced, the plan shall be returned to the Planning Commission for updating to present codes:' MOTION SECONDED AND PASSED: Motion by Commissioner McMahon and seconded by Commissioner Gottlieb to approve the site development permit for first and second story additions and remodel with changes to the conditions of approval as noted. AYES: Chairman Schreiner, Commissioners Cheng; Finn, Gottlieb, Stutz, Doran & McMahon NOES: None j This item will be reviewed by the City Council for approval prior to the 21 day appeal period. 4.3 LANDS OF CONRADSON,13020 Cumbra Vista Court (22-95-ZP-SDGD- VAR); A request for a Site Development Permit for a minor addition and structural upgrade, and a variance to allow the maximum development area (MDA) to be exceeded. Commissioner Cheng noted difficulty in gaining access to the property. She suggested staff make the applicants aware of the need for access to the property. Mr. Porto suggested providing the Commission with applicant's telephone numbers so appointments to view the project could be made. Chairman Schreiner commented that the application should be judged on the merits of this particular application and not on anything that has been reviewed previously. She further asked how much of the lower area being enclosed is counted. Ms. Manca noted that the maximum development area for this lot was 5,000 square feet. The applicant is already exceeding the MDA by 2,015 square feet (grandfathered). Currently, the applicant is asking for an additional 917 square feet. The variance request is for enclosing the open lattice work area which has not previously been counted as development area. OPENED PUBLIC HEARING Planning Commission Minutes Approved 5/24/95 May 10, 1995 Page 5 Scott Conradson and Julie Wilker,13020 Cumbra Vista Court, applicants, with their architect Andrew Young, 261 Hamilton Avenue, Palo Alto, were present. Mr. Conradson discussed the purpose of the variance which was for a multi -functional upgrade to provide them with safety, maintaining the property value, and provide some additional storage and work space. From a safety standpoint, a pole house is typically thought to be a good structure in an earthquake. The preferred structural upgrade for earthquake proofing is shown on the plans. He noted difficulty in obtaining insurance for the house as many insurance companies felt because of the open area underneath the house, it was more susceptible to fire damage than a typical house. By enclosing this area, it appears more favorable in the eyes of the insurance companies. He further discussed the structural upgrade which would extend the longevity of the entire house up to an additional 50-75 years. Additionally, much of the sound coming off the freeway is rolling up underneath the house and coming up under the floor. The upgrade will reduce the noise levels. He questioned condition #8, noting because there were so many trees on the lot, fencing them at the dripline would actually prevent any equipment onto the property. He requested some leeway. CLOSED PUBLIC TESTIMONY Discussion ensued regarding suggested changes to the wording of the variance t findings; #1, last sentence would be as follows: The floor area will be within the `r allowable limits while the development area will exceed the grandfathered 2,015 square feet by 917 square feet, and #3, deleting "the proposed improvements will not be visible to neighbors and the house will not appear any larger than it is at present." Changes to the conditions of approval were as follows: #5, changing the first line to read "paint color shall match the existing structure and approved by staff..."; #8, wording to be provided by the assistant engineer to provide room for the equipment to access property; #9, changing "close to" to "over'; delete #10 as it is a duplication of #8; add an additional condition noting if the remodel requires 21 /2 or more of exterior walls to be replaced, the plan shall be returned to the Planning Commission for updating to present codes. Discussion ensued regarding adding an additional condition to comply with the Master Pathway Plan requiring a pathway easement for 10 feet (no development) along the freeway portion (northerly property line) of property. Les Earnest, Pathway Chair, noted a change in the original recommendation for a pathway. The committee originally had walked down the driveway onto the north side of the property and felt a pathway could be built. They had not continued around the edge. After returning to the site, they continued down the slope to discover the steepness of the slope not previously walked. The original recommendation was not complete. Commissioners Doran and Finn were not in favor of a pathway easement requirement. Commissioner Gottlieb suggested a pathway easement be granted over the existing 10 foot utilities easement There was a 4/3 consensus agreement. The new condition will appear under "Engineering". %W Planning Commission Minutes Approved 5/24/95 May 10, 1995 Page 6 MOTION SECONDED AND PASSED: Motion by Commissioner Finn and seconded by Commissioner Gottlieb to approve the site development permit and variance to exceed the maximum development area for an addition with the amendments and additions to the variance findings and conditions of approval as previously noted with the change of wording to the pathway requirement as noted prior. AYES: Chairman Schreiner, Commissioners Cheng, Stutz, McMahon, Gottlieb, Finn & Doran NOES: None. This item will be reviewed by the City Council for approval prior to the 21 day appeal period. Brief break at 8:50 p.m. 4.4 LANDS OF LINDY, 27591 Purissima Road (199 -94 -TM -IS -ND -GD); A request for a tentative map and mitigated negative declaration for a proposed three lot subdivision of 3.928 acres (APN 175-43-034). Negative Declaration comments will be accepted until May 31,1995 at 5:00 p.m. This item was discussed in two parts; (1) Negative Declaration, (2) Tentative Map. Ms. Kolf had provided the Commission with a supplemental packet of information. It was provided at this time so the Commission would have backup documentation for some of the issues that may be brought up this evening. A conceptual house floor plan for lot 3 was provided along with a map dated May 10th with changes to the leach fields. The leach field designs reflect the final review by the County Environmental Health Services Department. The environmental checklist form was discussed: III. Water, c) and the letter from the Santa Clara Valley Water District and their study of the creek. Ms. Kolf noted one change from 1962-1963 to present may have to do with the construction of the freeway at which time the State also installed a pipe further down stream. The Deer Creek drainage basin was discussed. Ms. Kolf felt that the water shed feeding into this area was approximately 84 acres. She had just received a flood control inventory study from the Santa Clara Valley Water District. The study states that Deer Creek has a drainage area of 1.6 square miles. SCV WD has not made any recommended changes for this application. Usually they look at the entire water shed that feeds into the creek. They do take into consideration present and possible new development. Commissioner Doran noted under the negative declaration, the report states that environmental health department has final say regarding the leach fields_. However in William Cotton's report it states that there may be some percolation testing that may need to be done as well as some pumping up hill. She asked if the Health Department V0 takes this recommendation into consideration or does Town engineering look at this Planning Commission Minutes Approved 5/24/95 May 10, 1995 Page 7 and make the determination. Ms Kolf noted that this was a recommendation from the Town geologist earlier in the review process. The County did take the recommendation and required wet weather percolation tests. The final field alignments that they are reviewing reflect the results of the percolation tests. The final letter which is in the packet is the final approval letter from the County which includes some restrictions for the size of the houses and the number of bathrooms. Commissioner Doran asked if there was anything they could review indicating how many water closets or drainage would be emptying into this except by labeling it'bedrooms"? Ms. Kolf commented that this is something that the County looks at in reviewing it for the Town. They look at the number of bedrooms and the square footage of the structure. The Town requires new houses and applications for site development to be reviewed by the County for approval prior to hearing the project at Planning Commission level. She also noted that the creek alteration permit is generally for the construction of the bridge that will take place in the creek. OPENED PUBLIC HEARING Shannon Paboojian,12280 Saratoga -Sunnyvale Road, Saratoga, applicant, discussed the negative declaration, environmental health services as it related to the leach fields, the placement of homes, and the reasoning for the house on lot 3 to be on the west side rather than the east side of the creek. Placing the house on the east side would create a house below leach fields which is not desired. He further discussed the name of the street (Brubaker Lane versus Samuel Lane); the leach fields as approved by Environmental Health Services; and the restrictions placed on each house (lot 1, six bedrooms; lot 2, four bedrooms; and lot 3, four bedrooms. He commented on the trees which may be impacted and some that may be removed which include the trees located in the public roadway: two oak trees of 26 on the property due to upgrading of the bridge per the Fire District; and four Canary Island Date Palms of 11 along the Purissima frontage. Impact on trees located in the primary leach field included one coast live oak on Lot 2 (improperly labeled on the tentative map). Impact on trees located in the secondary leach field included ten trees consisting of four deodar cedar, four coast live oak, one Arizona cypress, and one valley oak. The new map indicated that the cut and fill are now balanced. He indicated that the sewer line was on top of the hill, farther away than Canario Way and no way to connect. He further discussed the flood control process with Santa Clara Valley Water District. He noted a concern of the Town as to where the water goes and what is the constriction down stream. The constriction down stream turned out to be an eight foot diameter pipe that runs under Purissima Road to the swale on the other side. He reviewed creek levels very carefully during the heavy raining season. It was noted that there was not way to connect the project to a sewer system. Mr. Paboojian indicated an arborist report from Barrie Coate which he will submit at a later date. The mechanics of the leach field on the east side of the bridge being 20 feet higher than on the west side was explained. it Planning Commission Minutes Approved 5/24/95 - May 10, 1995 Page 8 David Pilling, 12849 Canario Way, discussed drainage from above the Morrison's and his property; problems with the water under his house; the mixing of storm runoff water and leach field water; the creek being contaminated with bacteria; effluents going across the creek; additional development and how to separate all the runoff from the storm drains and the natural leach fields which are occurring from the homes including his home; and the possible legal action because of the runoff from his property onto new development, asking if he had legal protection. Cooper and Clark from Palo Alto soils testing engineers had come out to the site explaining how all the water soaks into the ground up above the mountain range over them and goes underground and re- appears in the areas designated on his overhead transparency provided by Mr. Pilling. Chairman Schreiner, hearing Mr. Pilling's concerns, felt some of the "no" marks under Water' needed to be looked at more closely and perhaps moved to "maybe". Mr. Pilling commented on either a State or Federal law which states any property owner cannot block the natural runoff of a course of water coming off a basin (or whatever). It was Cooper and Clark's opinion that this has always been the natural runoff for the whole range up and in back of them. Ms. Kolf will provide Mr. Pilling with a copy of a letter submitted from the applicant's civil engineer addressing this particular topic. Jerry Anderson, 12829 Canario Way, was concerned with drainage with three new homes being constructed. Paul Swanson, 17543-11, discussed drainage concerns including the massive amounts J of water coming off the freeway through the maintenance yard; the flooding in 1964; and three times in the past year the creek reaching the top of bank. Mr. Paboojian discussed the job of public agencies including Fish & Game and Environmental Heath Services. Tests were done during the 150 year flood and the need to trust the agencies' approval. The creek flow was still three feet left off of bank during the heavy storms. It was noted that staff will make the necessary changes to the negative declaration, environmental checklist form, bringing back the changes to the Planning Commission. Other concerns were noise and animal life. Staff will draft responses in a similar format used for the Lands of Vidovich. Jean Struthers, Environmental Design Committee, discussed the checklist, under "Water" specifically V. b) and XI. b). Other concerns included M. c), IV. c), VI. All should be changed from "no" to "maybe". She asked if there was any cultural impact? She further discussed septic fields and careful installation. She wondered if there was better ways to trench. She was also concerned with the quality of the creek water. Commissioner Cheng noted many problems with drainage even after final approval on many subdivisions. CLOSED PUBLIC TESTIMONY Planning Commission Minutes Approved 5/24/95 May 10, 1995 ` Page 9 Discussion ensued regarding map issues. It was not known if the map was created by an aerial survey or a land survey. Staff will investigate and report back to the Commission. Commissioner Gottlieb noted in William Cottons report he listed the property at 3.7 acres and in another report listed the property at 3.9 acres. She would like a clarification regarding storm drains over drainage swales which will flow into Deer Creek although the discussion this evening has been on sheet flow. It does not appear to be any areas over 30% slope to be placed into a conservation easement. OPENED PUBLIC HEARING Mr. Paboojian, applicant, noted that the water spoken of as being taken down to Deer Creek is the driveway water. The driveway on lot 2 is an existing driveway. Pathways were discussed noting the Type IIB pathway along the frontage was acceptable as it already exists. The north property line pathway was discussed noting Pathway Committee requests on 7/13/94 for a 10 foot easement, on 4/1/95 a request for a 20 foot easement, and on 4/13/95 a request for a 30 foot easement. The existing grade as shown is a 15% slope. He would like to keep the pathway to a 10 foot easement since he did make the offer which requires a $15,000 bridge to cross the creek. Now he is being asked for a trail easement along the easterly property line. This would cross the swale i. at the top of lot 1. He understands the reason, however giving trails on three sides of rr his property and with a step -on contour house proposed, the trail will be seven feet higher than the house, looking right into their windows. There is a privacy issue on lot 1. He further discussed the dedication of frontage per item 17 on page 10 of the staff report. He felt a 30 foot half street right-of-way has already been dedicated to the Town so no further dedication should be required. He was aware of the Environmental Design Committee's concern with the two oaks to the north of the bridge which he does not believe are over a 20 inch diameter. All trees impacted are shown on the map. He noted the Committee's concern with the protection of the cut slope which is handled under condition of approval #24. He understood the concern with noise, providing the Town with a copy of the sound survey. He further discussed the neighbor's concerns and the legal easement on parcel 3. He further discussed a document dated 1962 delivered to Town staff by Mr. Swanson, a document between Otto and Lester Brubaker granting to Shecter (now Lindy) from Brubaker (now Swanson) an easement over the driveway to the proposed Lot 2. This document is not recorded on his title report and was not disclosed at the time of purchase. That document set up a 20 X 120 foot easement at the request of the Town of Los Altos Hills for the purpose "to provide either the Town or future owners with suitable bargaining power." Not a very good reason for an easement. He does not need to eliminate this easement any longer as the slope density calculations still work without eliminating the easement. Something for the staff to investigate regarding the letter is that now Mr. Swanson cannot subdivide without losing his access to the bridge. Mr. Paboojian felt he was being penalized 11r because he is the first one developing. Staff will discuss this with the City Attorney. He asked for a deferred agreement in the case that Mr. Swanson's property develops in Planning Commission Minutes Approved 5/24/95 May 10, 1995 Page 10 the future, he will be reimbursed for the expense of the bridge. He further discussed staff's concerns with lot 3 looking overly constrained and requesting to see a house plan with hardscape, driveways, etc. which he provided to the Commission. He had also discussed creating CC&R's for this property which not only covers the conservation easement and restrict the size of lot 3 to 4,500 square feet of floor area rather than the allowable 6,441 square feet. Ms. Kell will provide a copy of the noise study to the Planning Commission. Commissioner Doran asked staff, since the design of the house was predicated on the bridge, was there a possibility of changing the location of the bridge? Ms. Kolf noted several years ago the same sort of application went through the Planning Commission which included an extensive study. Due to the proposed location not being as safe for sight distance and for where it would outset onto Purissima Road, the application was denied. Impact to the trees was also reviewed. She also noted that the City Attorney has reviewed the documents provided by Mr. Swanson and she agreed that a reimbursement agreement for the construction for the bridge would probably be appropriate for this project which is provided for under the Map Act. The Commission would determine the length of the agreement (5-10 years). Mr. Pilling, 12849 Canario Way, noted that when he heard that the property next to his would be developed, he was hoping it would be in keeping with the neighborhood. He does not feel the proposed development is in keeping with the neighborhood, causing a crowding effect. The overall effect should be reviewed. Les Earnest, Pathway Committee Chair, discussed the proposed pathway on the west edge of the property. The slope coming up from the creek in an uphill direction is not 15% slope but 25% slope. The Pathways Committee has been tightening their standards on pathway slope because of noticed erosion after storms (steep pathways wash out). This is why they requested a wider easement in the segment that is steeply uphill so that switch backs could be placed there. The Pathway Committee recommends a 30 foot easement for the portion that is steeply uphill. It was noted that a 20 foot easement with a 15% slope is also workable. Discussion ensued regarding the name of the street; Samuel Lane versus Brubaker Lane. Mr. Swanson commented that the Brubaker's were the owners in 1897. Lester Brubaker was born on the property and Mrs. Brubaker is still alive. Lester Brubaker was responsible for planting most of the trees on Mr. Swanson's property except for the older oaks. CLOSED PUBLIC TESTIMONY Commissioner Stutz had a concern with #36 regarding street trees being planted along Samuel Lane. She felt this was excessive. She felt the trees should be removed from the condition suggesting bringing this back to the Site Development Committee. Planning Commission Minutes Approved S/24/95 May 10, 1995 ` Page 11 �r Commissioner Gottlieb suggested using one driveway accessing all three lots which would reduce the amount of pavement. Mr. Porto noted a few issues with shared driveways, also noting that the driveways are carrying drainage. If you try to group the three together you will be required to go to 60 feet on a public street with turnaround, etc. Ms. Kolf noted that the location of the leach field on lot 1 should be below the house. MOTION SECONDED AND WITHDRAWN: Motion by Commissioner Doran and seconded by Commissioner Finn to continue the Lands of Lindy to June 14,1995. The motion was withdrawn by the maker with concurrence of the second. Discussion ensued regarding the Lands of Vidovich schedule and the possible need for an additional meeting date. MOTION SECONDED AND PASSED BY CONSENSUS: Motion by Commissioner Doran, seconded by Commissioner McMahon and passed by consensus to continue the Lands of Lindy to Monday, June 5th at 7:00 p.m. MOTION SECONDED AND PASSED BY CONSENSUS: Motion by Commissioner Doran, seconded by Commissioner McMahon and passed by consensus recommending the meeting not to go past 12:00. G�41ilA8K&Or#V CEO laI00a!1!IQt 5.1 Planning Commission representative for May 3rd meeting -Chairman Schreiner. Items discussed were as follows: Dr. Hwong's denial upheld by the Council 3/2; the recommendation from the Council regarding tennis court material counting 100% development area; and the report from the Planning Commission (reporting only on current issues, if needed). 5.2 Planning Commission representative for May 17th meeting -Commissioner Doran. 6. NEW BUSINESS 6.1 Discussion -scheduling an additional Planning Commission meeting for May 31 or June 1. June 5th was added to the Planning Commission schedule as noted previously. i Planning Commission Minutes Approved 5/24/95 May 10, 1995 Page 12 y 6.2 Discussion of Council policy on circular driveways. The Council would like the Planning Commission to discuss circular driveways for possible changes. Discussion ensued noting the following comments: circular driveways (two entrances) were discouraged except for safety; driveway cuts should be kept to a minimum; there should be a common sense approach to driveway design, looking for a good design; circular driveway ends should not be in setbacks; two accesses within a 100 foot frontage may be acceptable, anything less would not be allowed; there should be some parameters if circular driveways were allowed; and a suggestion to count all of the driveway towards development area rather than a portion of it. 6.3 Discussion on possible changes in review process for Site Development permits (subcommittee -Cheng, McMahon, Casey and Dauber). Commissioner Cheng reported on the subcommittee meeting discussion regarding streamlining the site development process. Currently there are three process steps; administrative, site development committee, and Planning Commission. They suggested adding to the second process (staff with neighborhood notification) of projects between 900-1,500 square feet with the total area under 6,000 square feet of floor area. Secondary dwelling units would also be approved at the second level (site i development committee). At staff discretion, the proposed projects can be advanced to r/ the Planning Commission level. This item will be heard at the Planning Commission with recommendations forwarded to City Council. Commissioner Stutz would prefer not making any changes in procedures until they have a staff that has been here for at least a year. The Commission complimented the consultants for their fine work commenting on their professionalism. Mr. Porto noted that the level of expectation of the people coming to the counter at Los Altos Hills was unlike any place the consultants had ever been before. The demands that the residents put on staff is unlike anything he had ever encountered. It is a very labor intense situation which requires a lot of work from staff standpoint. He felt 90% of the people coming to the counter were mad walking in the door about the process, what they have to go through and about the constraints everyone is putting on the property. Staff's job is to explain to them the codes and ordinances to protect everyone in town and that what staff is here to do is help everyone get their project through the process. This takes a large amount of time. Everyone wants a very high level of service. Mr. Porto felt the committee was heading in the right direction with Suzanne, Susan and the new Planning Director starting June 1st. In the past they have not had the extra Planner or Susan, both providing more information to the Planning Commission. Chairman Schreiner commented that the Council felt the Planning Commission is not working on the broader issues (codes, ordinances, General Plan). Giving the staff more authority may give the Commission - more time for other issues on the agenda. `o Planning Commission Minutes Approved 5/24/95 May 10, 1995 Page 13 7. O.DBUSINESS 7.1 Report from subcommittees. No reports at this time. 8. APPROVAL OF MINI ZTES 8.1 Approval of the April 26,1995 Minutes. MOTION SECONDED AND PASSED BY CONSENSUS: Motion by Commissioner Doran and seconded by Commissioner Finn to approve the April 26th minutes with the following changes: page 6., paragraph 4, "Staff indicated that it was not appropriate to ask the applicant's representative at this time."; and page 12, paragraph 2, deleting "did not feel;' 9. REPORT FROM THE SITE DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE MEETINGS 9.1 LANDS OF YUNG,13880 Campo Vista Lane; A request for a Site Development Permit for a landscape plan (continued from the April 26th meeting). Approved April 26th with conditions. 9.2 LANDS OF LIN, 12380 Priscilla Lane; A request for a Site Development Permit for a tennis court. Approved with conditions April 26,1995. 9.3 LANDS OF KWONG,13964 Fremont Pines Lane; A request for a Site Development Permit for a pool, spa and hardscape. Approved with conditions May 2,1995. The meeting was adjourned by consensus at 11:58 p. m. Respectfully submitted, aL rd nbergel/ Planning Secretary V