HomeMy WebLinkAbout06/05/1995Minutes of a Regular Meeting Approved 6/14/95
Town of Los Altos Hills
PLANNING COMMISSION
Monday, June 5, 1995, 7:00
Council Chambers, 263791
cc: Cassettes #12-95 ( 3 )
Road
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, Doran, Finn, Gottlieb,
McMahon & Stutz
Staff: Curtis Williams, Planning Director; Mike Porto, Acting Town Planner;
Sheryl Kolf, Assistant Engineer; Suzanne Davis, Planner; Susan Manca,
Planner; Lani Lonberger, Planning Secretary
0.1 i AX:.
Jeff Peterson, City Manager, introduced and welcomed Curtis Williams, the new Planning
Director.
3. CONSENT CALENDAR
None.
4. Pi JBLC HEARINGS
4.1 LANDS OF KAWASAKI, 27078 FREMONT ROAD (23-95-ZP-SD-GD); A
request for a Site Development Permit for a new residence.
Mrs. Davis had nothing further to add to the staff report. However, she noted that there
were a few questions from Commissioners prior to the meeting. One question related to
the possibility of a joint access for this property and the undeveloped adjacent lot. Since
this was not done when the subdivision occurred, it is not something that can be required
of the applicant since they do not have control over the adjacent lot. The applicants only
access is onto Fremont Road. The second question related to the rear setback which was
not a requirement of the map but a private agreement. The plan shows the agreed
` setbacks and the required setbacks (40 feet in front and 30 feet on the sides and rear).
0/
Planning Commission Minutes Approved 6/14/95
June 5, 1995 -
Page 2
OPENED PUBLIC HEARING
Bill Bocook, 4041 El Camino Way, Palo Alto, architect, discussed the future garage and
the four parking spaces noting that the future garage is permitted in its position. It's the
driveway that leads to the future garage that falls within the 10 foot setback of the side
property line. He understood that they are allowed to drive into the setback if it is an
entrance off of the street but once you are on the site, you are not allowed to be in the
setback. They were not previously aware of this requirement. There is room within the
10 foot setback and the building to place the driveway to the garage which they will do
when the garage is built. In the staff report it was suggested that in order to have the
proper backup and parking for the four vehicles they rearrange the parking. He noted
that after they had made the submittal, the owner had asked if they would be able to
revise the entrance drive so that they would perhaps have a circular drive in the front of
the home with only one curb cut in the current location. It would be similar to a previous
design with the grades worked out with a civil engineer.
Commissioner Gottlieb asked if they have considered putting the garage under the house.
Chairman Schreiner discussed the proposed colors for the house suggesting they review
of the Town color board. Mr. Bocook commented that he felt the colors indicated on the
plan would be within the Town's color palate. He would comply with the color board.
CLOSED PUBLIC TESTIMONY J
Commissioner Stutz commented that she had spoken to the assistant engineer asking if
staff had found any indication that they could not put a separate driveway onto Fremont
Road which was able to be done on Fremont Pines. This lot has a 75 foot road right-of-
way instead of the usual 60 feet. She provided the Commission with a copy of the
address map showing the surrounding and adjoining lots. It was unfortunate that there
was not a cul-de-sac to service the three lots at the time of subdivision to cut down the
traffic coming onto Fremont Road. She suggested requiring the applicant to come in on
the lot line (10-12 feet wide) and, when the adjoining property comes in, require them to
also come in on the lot line (10-12 feet wide). They would have two entrances off of
Fremont much the same as if it was a cul-de-sac. This change would be for safety. She
had no problems with the house design even though the project does go from setback line
to setback line. She would like the plans corrected indicating the corrected setback lines
(redline plans).
Commissioner Gottlieb was concerned with the driveway, suggesting any change to the
driveway be returned to the Commission prior to approval. She would not vote for a
circular driveway that she has not seen. She agreed with Commissioner Stutz' suggestion
regarding the two entrances. She still would like the garage placed under the house as
this is project goes from setback to setback.
4
Planning Commission Minutes Approved 6/14/95
June 5, 1995 -
Page 3
Commissioner McMahon agreed that the plan be corrected by deleting the wording
regarding the 50 foot and 75 foot setbacks. If the driveways are intended to be changes,
she felt the approval could be handled at staff level. Regarding the garage under the
house, she commented that with a slope of 13.7%, there was not enough gradient there to
get the garage under without excavating and developing retaining walls. She did not
have a problem with the project going from setback to setback.
Commissioner Doran noted that they were not approving the future garage or driveway.
The application is for a new residence. She did like Commissioner Stutz' suggestion
regarding the driveway location for safety.
Commissioner Finn felt the project was good. He agreed that the subdivision approval
should have included a cul-de-sac but it does not. Current rules indicate that driveways
are to be 10 feet from the property line. The applicants have reviewed the ordinances and
followed them. Now we are asking that those rules be changed, asking the applicants to
share a driveway with their neighbor. This is not fair to the applicants. Shared driveways
do not work. He suggested staff review the request for a circular driveway.
Commissioner Cheng had no problems with the plan. Regarding a shared driveway, she
felt it would be appropriate if the applicant is agreeable. She would not make it a
requirement. Presently, the applicants are not applying for approval of the garage,
khowever she does not have a concern with its placement.
Discussion ensued regarding safety. Mrs. Davis noted that the ordinance states they
cannot grade within 10 feet of the property line without applying for a variance. Mr.
Bocook indicated that the applicant would prefer not having a shared driveway. The
driveway concept was not a part of the sale. This was all new information. They
intentionally moved the driveway away from the corner to meet the needs of the
neighbor across the street as they felt the closer they were to the property line, lights
might be shining into the neighbor's home across the street.
Commissioner Gottlieb realized the need to step down from the hearing due to a possible
business conflict of interests.
There was a consensus to accept the project as submitted.
MOTION SECONDED AND PASSED: Motion by Commissioner McMahon and
seconded by Commissioner Doran to approve the site development permit for a new
residence, correcting the address (27076 Fremont Road) and the deletion of the future
setback comments on the plan (75 foot and 50 foot):
AYES: Chairman Schreiner, Commissioners Stutz, Finn, Cheng, McMahon &
p Doran
NOES: None.
Aanning Commission Minutes Approved 6/14/95
June 5, 1995 _
Page 4
ABSTAIN: Commissioner Gottlieb (business relationship)
This item will appear on the City Council consent calendar June 21, 1995.
4.2 LANDS OF GATES, 25400 La Rena Lane (62-95-ZP-SD-GD); A request for a
Site Development Permit for a new residence.
Staff had nothing further to add to the staff report. The grass plastic was discussed and a
display of a similar material was provided for review. The grass plastic counts 50%
development area. The material is strong enough to drive and park on. Mrs. Davis
commented that the applicant was trying to reduce the amount of pavement to make the
property look nicer.
OPENED PUBLIC HEARING
Bennett Gates, 25400 La Rena Lane, applicant, indicated that the spa will be relocated out
of the setback and indicated the new location. The height of the retaining wall was
discussed noting the height above grade would be no more than 21/2 feet.
Ms. Kolf noted an additional condition of approval which needs to be added requesting a
30 foot sanitary sewer easement over the Water District's existing 30 foot access easement.
The 30 feet is needed to allow access and construction of the sewer lines. This would be
for the future,. If design plans came in and it was found that they did not need that wide
of an easement, then they would be able to reduce it at that time. The easement use
would change. This would be an easement that would potentially serve the large parcel
that is off of Robleda. The Town does not have sewer everywhere or a master plan to
guide them as to which easements are needed. When applications come in, they review
potential sanitary sewer needs. Commissioner Finn asked why it was not the
responsibility of the future subdivider to buy an easement from an existing land owner if
they need to put in sewer. Why is it the responsibility of the Commission to be taking
easements from people when they want to improve their property. It should not be for
the benefit of another property owner. Ms. Kolf responded that the intent of the Town is
to always be looking forward and thinking of future needs.
Mr. Bennett was not in favor of the new condition for several reasons: he will have his
lateral running up the driveway; there are existing large bore water pipes for the Water
District running up the same driveway, serving the water tank at the top of the hill next
to his property. Currently, he has had to put special fittings in his sewer lateral to let it
run adjacent to the water pipe line. He found it hard to believe that there was room there
to put a full sewer main. Mr. Bennett was in full support of the concept of the pathways
in Los Altos Hills. However, regarding the pathway which will be discussed, he invited
anyone to walk the driveway, peer down to their left and tell him how anyone can place a
walkable pathway there, even if they took out all of his existing hedges on that side. He
felt it was almost a physical impossibility to put a pathway in that location. It makes him
Planning Commission Minutes Approved 6/14/95
June 5, 1995 -
Page 5
very uncomfortable to be asked to give an easement as they would have to either cut
down all of his trees or put up an 8-10 foot retaining wall to create a level area
somewhere. He was willing to grant a pathway easement over the driveway.
Tom Griffiths, pathway committee, has been over the site. He and Les Earnest agreed
that the pathway should be over the driveway. Ms. Koff noted that the City Attorney had
suggested that the liability of putting a pathway easement over a driveway or a private
road is not a wise idea for the Town. It would encourage people to walk on a driveway
or street which has been designed for vehicular traffic, not people. This is why the
pathway was changed to be along the driveway rather than over the driveway. Mr.
Griffiths noted that the intent of the pathway was to go up to the water tower which is
behind the property to one side where there is another native path which would connect
La Rena with Brendel Drive.
CLOSED PUBLIC TESTIMONY
Discussion ensued regarding the easements, the placement of the spa, the pathway
easement, and the request for an expansion of the use of the Water District easement. The
Commissioners did not object to the revised retaining walls or the project. There was a
concern with the grass plastic being under the umbrella of the oak trees. The turnaround
area and requirements were discussed noting if the turnaround is over the requirements,
it will be reduced; if they are not, they will remain. Ms. Kolf will make that
determination. Commissioner Doran suggested not encumbering this property with the
pathway; waiting until the property above develops and taking a pathway at that time.
She did not feel it made any sense to take a pathway on this property if sometime in the
future they would have to find another connection.
The Commission discussed the request for a 30 foot sanitary sewer easement. The plan
indicates that the Water District easement is also a public utilities easement, however it
was Mr. Gates' understanding that this was incorrect. He had written the Water District
several times for clarification. The response from the Water District indicated that they
had separate 20 foot and 10 foot right-of-ways along his west property line recorded in
1957. The letter further states that the Water District has ingress/egress and pipeline
right-of-way only. This was not a public utilities easement. Commissioner Finn felt they
should not increase the burden to this property owner for the benefit of another property
owner. The Commission would like a clarification from the City Attorney. Mr. Gates felt
the confusion with the public utilities easement as shown of the plan was actually for the
power line that comes only as far as the 20 foot line indicates. He noted that there was a
power pole at the corner of the property which is the end of the power line. He suspects
that this is the public utilities easement as indicated.
Discussion ensued regarding the pathway request. Commissioner Cheng walked the
property and felt the pathway was not safe from the driveway, five feet along the current
L20 driveway, as it is very steep. Mr. Griffiths noted that it was their intention to improve the
Planning Commission Minutes Approved 6/14/95
June 5, 1995 -
Page 6
pathway easement once they have the connection. The pathway would be a walking and
bicycle path over the driveway with enough room for a horse to pass. He noted that this
was not an ideal situation, however there was no alternative solution to get onto an
existing pathway. It is not uncommon to have some pathways traversing driveways.
Discussion ensued regarding the conditions of approval with the following suggested
changes: condition #3, the landscape plan be reviewed by the Site Development
Committee (not changing procedure); #6, change "by the Planning Director' to
"Environmental Design and Protection Committee"; and #17, changing "adjacent to" to
"over."
MOTION WITHDRAWN: Motion by Commissioner Gottlieb requesting if the City
Attorney feels that taking of the sanitary sewer easement is in keeping with their site
development ordinances, the condition will become a part of the approval.
The Commission passed a consensus vote regarding Commissioner Gottlieb's statement.
Ms. Kolf provided wording for the new condition (#20) as follows:
"The City Attorney, project engineer and City Engineer shall determine if the 10 foot -20
foot easements over the driveway are existing public utility easements. If it is found that
the easements are existing public utilities easements then the 10 foot- 20 foot or 30 foot
wide sanitary sewer easements shall be granted to the Town along the westerly property
line as determined to be applicable. The applicant shall have the legal description and
plat exhibits prepared by either a registered civil engineer or a licensed land surveyor and
the Town shall prepare the grant document. The applicant shall submit the signed and
notarized grant document and exhibits to the Town prior to acceptance of plans for
building plan check."
MOTION SECONDED AND PASSED: Motion by Commissioner Gottlieb and seconded
by Commissioner McMahon to approve the site development permit for a new residence
with the following changes/amendments to the conditions of approval as numbered in
the staff report:
#3, reviewed by the Site Development Committee rather than staff.
#5, "as determined by the Environmental Design Committee."
#15, add to the last sentence "prior to final approval."
#16, changing "adjacent to" to "over"
Adding #20 as noted by Ms. Kolf.
AYES: Chairman Schreiner, Commissioners Stutz, Doran, McMahon, Cheng &
Finn
NOES: None.
This item will appear on the City Council consent calendar June 21, 1995. J
Planning Commission Minutes Approved 6/14/95
June 5, 1995 -
Page 7
4.3 LANDS OF LOHR, 24025 Oak Knoll Circle (lot 24) (39-95-ZP-SD-GD); A
request for a Site Development Permit for a new residence and pool.
Staff had nothing further to add to the staff report. Commissioner Cheng noted at a prior
meeting they had discussed only requiring a deed restriction if the remaining
development or floor area is less than 50 square feet. It was Ms. Manca's understanding
that if the development or floor area remaining was between 100 and 50 square feet, the
wording would be "close to'. If the development or floor area remaining was 50 square
feet of under, the deed restriction would state "the maximum allowable at this time."
It was noted that a retaining wall within the side setback cannot exceed 6 feet in height.
The retaining wall being proposed is 7 feet in height and will need to be redesigned. Cut
and fill figures were discussed.
OPENED PUBLIC HEARING
Steve Lohr, J. Lohr Properties, 586 Lagunita, Stanford, discussed the design of the project
noting that they wanted to keep the house low enough to preserve the views of the valley
for the property owners on lot 23 and the property owners to the south of this lot. Other
design features included minimizing the impact from the street; owners preferring the
4 pool lower than the family room; retaining wall at its peak is 7 feet by the stairway; no
retaining walls over 6 feet in height within the side setback; basement cut will be 350 to
500 c.y. in the back area; and the basement stairs being in the setback being treated much
the same way as a pool deck (able to encroach 5 feet into the setback).
CLOSED PUBLIC TESTIMONY
Commissioner Gottlieb discussed the steep cut for the pool suggesting terracing in up
three feet for the pad and terracing up again another three feet. This would conform with
the slope ordinance. She also noted that all landscape on the subdivision should be of a
native variety. Commissioner Stutz clarified that this was a request, not a requirement
for native planting. The pool equipment location needs to be added to the plan which
will reduce the development area only.
Commissioner McMahon commented that on cross section A, it does not leave the
building and go out and pick up the pool, deck and terrace. The grade is not shown on
the cross section. Commissioner Doran was always impressed with the applicant's use of
the land, however there is a need for the use of other exterior materials to make the
houses in the subdivision look different from each other. Perhaps they could use
something other then stucco and file roofs. Mr. Lohr agreed noting that lot 27 has a
redwood siding exterior with a cedar shingle roof. Lot 1 has a stucco side with a real slate
roof. They agree with varying the exterior materials and roofs as they are in the business
1*0 of building custom homes. Commissioner Finn agreed with the need to vary the exterior
Planning Commission Minutes Approved 6/14/95
June 5, 1995 -
Page 8
and roof materials. Commissioner Cheng was only concerned with the tremendous
amount of cut.
Mr. Lohr commented that the applicant would like to maintain the exterior material and
roofing as presented. With the upcoming homes, they will try to get as much variety as
possible. The colors for this project will be brown/orange clay barrel tile. The color of
the house will be some type of earthtone.
Commissioner Stutz commented that the house would have had a more gracious look
with a circular driveway. Chairman Schreiner agreed with the comments regarding
exterior and roofing material. Her main concern was with the excessive cut for a flat pad.
Terracing and stepping would reduce the amount of cut and the requirement for the
retaining wall. Commissioner Stutz noted that the subdivision requirements provided for
some quiet area on the lots. If the pool is set up, they will have noise in the outside area.
Commissioner Finn disagreed with raising the pool, discussing the possibility of water
coming into the home during an earthquake.
There was a consensus to request the pool to be raised a few feet. Mr. Lohr agreed to
redesign the pool after discussing this with the applicant. He will also extend section A
to show pool, terrace, retaining walls and the grade line. The Commission also asked that
he indicate the limit of the last retaining wall in relationship to the oak trees.
The conditions of approval were discussed. Changes included the deletion of conditions
#11, 23, and deleting "decking, pool and walls" from #20
Commissioner Doran commented there were a number of properties in Town that they
have approved with large elevation changes with approved stairways. They have all
been occupied with temporary stairways. She would like the temporary stairway policy
eliminated and the houses completed.
MOTION SECONDED AND PASSED: Motion by Commissioner Doran and seconded by
Commissioner Cheng to approve a site development permit for a new residence only
including approval for a circular driveway (staying out of the setbacks) with the
following changes/ amendments to the conditions of approval. The redesign of the pool
and the layout of the circular driveway shall return to the Planning Commission June 28
for review and approval.
#3, add, planting on the west property line should not block views of lot 23.
#11, delete
#20, delete "decking, pool and walls'
#23, delete
W
Planning Commission Minutes Approved 6/14/95
June 5, 1995 -
Page 9
AYES: Chairman Schreiner, Commissioners McMahon, Gottlieb, Finn, Stutz,
Cheng & Doran
NOES: None
This item will appear on the City Council consent calendar June 21,1995.
Brief break at 9:20 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) (continued
from May 10, 1995).
Staff had nothing further to add to the staff report. Chairman Schreiner complimented
staff for the thorough staff report. The staff report indicated that all the required tests
were completed.
OPENED PUBLIC HEARING
Shannon Paboojian, applicant, commented on changes made since the previous meeting
which included: shifting the home site on lot 1 towards the swale as requested by
�, Commissioner Gottlieb; changed the public street name to Brubaker Lane; corrected lot 2
leach field designation; completed a botanist study of the property; completed a habitat
study for red and yellow legged frogs; submitted to the Town an' assessment of the
expected effects of proposed grading" prepared by Barrie Coate; and submitted to the
Town a letter from the engineer responsible for the topographic map which clarifies that
it was a field survey. For clarification, he commented that the decision not to abandon
the easement along the southerly property line was not his decision but rather a situation
of maintaining his neighboi s "bargaining tool' as defined by an agreement between the
two former owners of their properties. He has reviewed and accepted the conditions of
approval. He has reviewed and accepted the Mitigated Negative Declaration and
accompanying Mitigation Monitoring Checklist. He requested approval of the project for
the following reasons: lots conform to the Town subdivision ordinances; the proposed
subdivision is consistent with the General Plan, all lots are physically suitable for the
proposed development as defined by the Town Geologist and City Engineer; the lots
conform to the existing neighboring properties; septic systems for the lots where defined
through testing under the worst of conditions; received the blessing of the Santa Clara
Valley Water District; and he has satisfied the requirements of the Department of Fish
and Game by completing the Botanist and Habitat study relating to the bridge.
Discussion ensued regarding the restrictions (limits) on each lot; lot 1, six bedrooms; lot 2,
four bedrooms; and lot 3, four bedrooms and 4,500 square feet floor area which is not a
requirement. Commissioner Gottlieb was concerned with lot 1 not having the area for a
�, pool with a 6,000 square foot house. She would like to see a restriction placed on lot 1 to
Planning Commission Minutes Approved 6/14/95
June 5, 1995 -
Page 10
this fact. Chairman Schreiner asked what was the percentage of slope on the driveway on
lot 1. Ms. Kolf noted that the maximum slope in that cut area is 10% with an area at the
top that is 15%. As previously discussed, the sanitary sewer is more than 3,000 feet away
from this site and up on the hill. Chairman Schreiner would like to discuss this later with
staff as this area is ready for some type of study regarding a sewer assessment district.
She further discussed MDA/MFA on lot 2.
Staff indicated what could be placed over a leach field which included lawns, a corral for
horses, a volley ball court, or a putting green. They would not be able to put a tennis
court or any paved surface over a leach field. It was noted that grade beam, and pier was
only required on grades over 13%. Mr. Paboojian accepted condition #29, although this
was a new condition. After all his studies, he could not imagine Santa Clara Valley Water
District requesting improvement (widening) of the creek. Ms. Kolf commented that the
additional wording was provided so that if additional erosion control measures in the
banks of the creek were needed, they would be provided. Mr. Paboojian was correct in
that all the studies show that the capacity of the creek is sufficient as it exists. The
concern would be with the treatment of the banks of the creek.
Dave Pilling, 12849 Canario Way, discussed: drainage and the Terrasearch report; the
area for leach field for lot 1 soaked with water during the rainy season; and who is
responsible for property drainage. He asked if the responsibility falls on the subdivider
or the new owner if the drainage system does not work properly. Ms. Kolf noted that ,
ultimately, while the subdivider owns the property, the subdivider would be responsible
for doing the proper research and reports that the Town requires to develop the property.
If a new owner comes in to develop the property, they would be responsible for having
the sufficient research and reports that the Town Geologist, City Engineer and Town
Planner would require and approve prior to building their home. Mr. Pilling further
noted that there were six to eight possible home sites on the Morrison's property; two to
three home sites on the Swanson property; and an additional twee home sites on this
property which is a lot of homes for just this small area. He is not really against a sanitary
sewer system even for his own use. He asked if it was possible to put in a sewer system
to service the new homes. Ms. Koff responded that, as the polity is now, if a new
residence comes in, they are required to connect to sewer if it is available within 400 feet
of their property. When a new subdivision comes in, they are required to connect to
sewer if it is available within 1,000 feet of their property. This property is 5,000 feet from
the sewer line. If this is something that the residents in the area think is something that
they would all benefit from, they need to inform the City Council that they would like to
see a sanitary sewer assessment district in this area now, not 20 years from now. The cost
to bring sewer to this particular piece of property is approximately $500,000 and would
also require a pump station. Chairman Schreiner noted another area of development
which will need a sewer connection in the area off of Elena, Purissima and Arastradero.
It was noted that the Morrison property drains down to the Lindy property by way of a
natural culvert running almost down the property line, then fanning over onto lot 1. Mr.
Pilling noted that he would be willing to work with the developer regarding drainage.
}Tanning Commission Minutes Approved 6/14/95
June 5, 1995 -
Page 11
Jerry Anderson, 12529 Canario Way, noted he liked some of the changes that have been
made. As far as the water coming off his property, it is not the same as Mr. Pilling's. The
horse coral area is wet year-round. He would like to see story poles showing the possible
future homes. When asked, he commented that he was not sure what elevation would
block his view.
CLOSED PUBLIC TESTIMONY
Discussion ensued regarding the Mitigated Negative Declaration.
MOTION SECONDED AND PASSED: Motion by Commissioner Finn and seconded by
Commissioner Stutz recommending approval of the Mitigated Negative Declaration to
the City Council.
AYES: Chairman Schreiner, Commissioners McMahon, Gottlieb, Doran, Stutz,
Cheng & Finn
NOES: None.
MOTION SECONDED AND PASSED: Motion by Commissioner Doran and seconded by
Commissioner Stutz recommending approval of the Draft Mitigation Monitoring
�w Program to the City Council.
AYES: Chairman Schreiner, Commissioners Cheng, Finn, McMahon, Gottlieb,
Stutz & Doran
NOES: None.
Discussion ensued regarding the Tentative Map. Issues were: pathway easement; size,
location and limitation of the houses relating to floor and development area, and height;
and uses in the conservation easement. Ms. Kolf noted, as the code is written, what is
allowed in a conservation easement is defined by the Planning Commission. The City
Attorney prefers to put this information directly into the conservation easement
dedication document which she now requires with subdivision final maps so future
owners would be informed. The right to review at the Site Development level is not lost.
However, if they specify "no pools" they would lose the right at the Site Development
stage to say, yes, you may have a pool. If they state that pools may be allowed, then they
can look at it on an individual basis. It was noted that normally non -habitable structures
are allowed in a conservation easement. For lot 2, staff would recommend no structures
of any type, and no permanent fencing, only temporary fencing (open style -no solid
fence) for grazing would be allowed. The Commission included this restriction for lot 3.
Discussion ensued regarding the 4,500 square foot MFA restriction placed on lot 3 by Mr.
Paboojian. Commissioner Finn asked if the restriction was for the entire property or only
�, a restriction of the main house which means if they were ever to connect to sewer the
Planning Commission Minutes Approve -1 6/14/195
June 5, 1995 -
Page 12
owners may have the option to built a secondary unit. Commissioner Gottlieb suggested
wording stating that they were restricting the home on one side of the lot to 4,500 square
feet floor area. At such time that sanitary sewers are available, the remaining floor area
would be available to build something on the other side of the creek. It was noted that
the floor area as shown on the plan would be 4,511 square feet which does not include
the garage. They would need an additional 856 square feet for the garage. They would
need at least 5,400 square feet for floor area. It would be much better to give an applicant
a little leeway to present a design since the lot is so restrictive. This was not the time to be
designing a house. There was a concern to forewarn a potential buyer of the constraints
of the lot. Mr. Porto commented that the lot is already restricted by the number of
bedrooms through the Health Department and the availability of the leach fields.
Chairman Schreiner suggested a deed restriction on all three lots stating that the lot(s)
may not be allowed the full development area and/or full floor area due to the
constraints of the lot. This wording could be a part of the CC&Rs. Commissioner
Gottlieb would like to see this restriction stated on the map also. She also requested there
be a height limitation of a one story house on lot 2. Mr. Pabooiian made it clear that the
houses and the leach fields are only paper designs. They can all be in different locations.
The only thing set are the linear feet for the leach fields. Discussion ensued regarding
height limitations. Ms. Kolf suggested adding to the warning regarding MDA/MFA that
they may not be allowed to develop the project to the maximum height allowances.
PASSED BY CONSENSUS: To continue past 11:00 p.m.
Discussion ensued by Commissioner Stutz regarding pathway conditions:
#14, changing it to read "A 10 foot wide pathway easement shall be granted to the public
along the northerly property line of the subdivision from Purissima Road to the northeast
corner of the property. The easement shall be kept clear of obstacles, vegetation and
obstructions. The dedication shall be accomplished as part of the subdivision Final Map
condition.
#35 to be changed as follows: A Type IIB pathway shall be constructed along the
westerly property line of the subdivision within the Purissima Road right of way and
shall be cleared as a native pathway within the proposed pathway easement along the
northerly property line. A pedestrian bridge or culvert shall be constructed at the Deer
Creek crossing to meet the requirements. Improvements shall be constructed prior to
recordation of the Final Map or be bonded for.
#37, delete condition as she did not want to see any more trees planted. They may
require additional trees when the projects come in for a site development permit for
landscaping.
30a, 30b, and 30c, adding to each, "The approved. development for this lot may be
reduced from the calculated Maximum Floor Area (MFA) and Maximum Development
14
Plamang Commission Minutes Approved 6/14/95
• ' June 5, 1995 -
Page -3
Area (MDA), according to the Town's Municipal Code. It will include a deed restriction
on all three lots stating that the lot(s) may not be allowed the full development area and
full floor area due to the constraints of the lot.
Height warning will appear under Mitigation Measures #16.
MOTION SECONDED AND PASSED: Motion by Commissioner Doran and seconded by
Commissioner Finn recommending approval of the Tentative Map to the City Council,
Lands of Lindy, as amended.
AYES: Chairman Schreiner, Commissioners Gottlieb, McMahon, Stutz, Finn,
Cheng & Doran
NOES: None.
This item will be noticed for public hearing for the June 21st City Council meeting.
5. REPORT FROM THE CITY COUNCIL MEETING
None.
` 6. NEW BUSINESS
None.
OLD BUSINESS
7.1 Report from subcommittees. Chairman Schreiner noted that a report came in from
the housing committee noting there was $83,000 available to Los Altos Hills from CDBG
funds. The funds are available for low interest loans for construction of a few affordable
secondary dwellings.
7.2 Discussion -Circular driveways.
Chairman Schreiner will be writing a report for the City Council meeting of June 21st.
She asked the Planning Director to also write a report regarding when circular driveways
would be allowed including illustrations for guidelines. Currently, circular driveways
have been discouraged except for safety. There has always been concerns with too much
excess pavement into the setbacks, the width of the lot being considered before allowing a
circular driveway, and using a certain distance between the two legs of the circular
driveway. She would like to see as much of the driveway out of the setbacks, especially
the front setback so there could be some landscaping to buffer the house. Another
suggestion was to not have the driveway too close to the neighbor's driveway.
Commissioner Stutz provided additional written suggestions regarding circular
P.arming Commission Minutes Approved 6/74/95
ane 5, 1x995 -
Page 14
driveways. The Commission would like to look at circular driveways while retaining a
rural atmosphere.
7.3 Discussion -Color Board.
Chairman Schreiner provided samples of wood stain which was agreeable to all.
8.1 Approval of the May 24, 1995 Minutes.
MOnI ON SECONDED AND PASSED BY CONSENSUS: Motion by Commissioner Finn,
seconded by McMahon and passed by consensus with the following changes: elaborate
on the Consent Calendar procedures relating to public noticing; include parcel numbers
of both Lands of Ward, 4.1 and 4.2; page 6, include "pathway committee" after "Bob
Stutz"; and page 7, third paragraph, changing the first sentence to read, Commissioner
Stutz felt it was very unethical to ask for more paths on a subdivision that has just
completed the process.
9. REPORT FROM THE SITE DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE MEETING OF MAY
30.1995
9.1 LANDS OF REDDY, 1324 Middle Fork Lane; A request for a Site
Development Permit for a pool and hardscape. Approved with conditions.
10. ADTOURNMENT
The meeting was adjourned by consensus at 11:45 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Lam Lonberger
Planning Secretary
FIN