Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout09/26/1995Minutes of a Special Meeting Approved 10/11/95 Town of Los Altos Hills PLANNING COMMISSION Tuesday, September 26,1995, 7:00 p.m. Council Chambers, 26379 Fremont Road cc: Cassettes #20-95 ( 2 ) 1. ROLL CALL ANDPLEDGE OFA --_.AN The Planning Commission meeting was called to order at 7:00 p.m. in the Council Chambers at Town Hall. Present: Chairman McMahon, Commissioners Gottlieb, Finn, Schreiner, Doran & Stutz Absent Commissioner Cheng Staff: Curtis Williams, Planning Director; Jeff Peterson, City Manager; Lani Lonberger, Planning Secretary L Consultant: John Hesler with David Powers and Associates 3.1 LANDS OF VIDOVICH, QUARRY HILLS SUBDIVISION TENTATIVE MAP, 11920 Stonebrook Drive (254 -93 -TM and 257-93-EIR); A request for certification of the Final Environmental Impact Report, amendments to the Town's General Plan, Pre -Zoning to the R -A (Residential -Agricultural) District, and approval of a Tentative Map for 23 lots on 78 acres (continued from September 7,1995). Staff had nothing further to add to the staff report. There had been a letter received from Carol Johnson with copies provided to the Commissioners. Commissioner Finn noted he had listened to the tape of the September 7th meeting. OPENED PUBLIC HEARING Jim Sisk, representing the applicant, noted there was no new information to present at this time. k Planning Commission Minutes Approved 10/11/95 September 26, 1995 Page 2 Dr. Martin, 11666 Dawson Drive, discussed the marking of the pathway through the Juan Prado Preserve. In reviewing the flags marking the manholes, it appears there are noticeable differences in heights in the sewer line. He was concerned with eventual sewer breaks which would not be discovered until trees start dying. Carol Johnson, 10955 Magdalena Road, commented on her letter dated September 21, 1995, highlighting the following: geotechnical instability of the south and southeast walls above the quarry as described in the March 1995 Draft EIR; endangered vehicle and driver safety; the loss of the rural, rustic nature of Stonebrook Drive; the General Plan encouragement of cul-de-sacs and loop type roads to reduce through traffic; Stonebrook as a through road carrying more traffic onto El Monte and the increased subdivision traffic; Stonebrook as a through road plus an inviting lake and a parking lot at the opening to the Open Space Preserve increasing traffic from outside of the community. In summary, she felt the Stonebrook proposal to support the Quarry Hills subdivision should include the following elements: (1) make Stonebrook an emergency access road for use on a daily basis by the immediate area residents only; (2) do not require the 8 to 10 foot retaining wall on the southeast quarry wall; (3) increase Stonebrook to a 20 foot width for emergency access with the exception to use pavement indentations around the heritage oaks; and (4) do not add a parking lot at lot 17 in the Quarry Hills subdivision for general public use. Tricia Daley, 10944 Stonebrook, discussed the lack of adequate fencing from Stonebrook i to the Quarry to keep people out who do not belong in that area. She suggested a see J through fence which would not inhibit the view but would stop people from going into the Quarry area. CLOSED PUBLIC HEARING The Commission started their discussion regarding the eight (8) significant issues as listed in the staff report. Commissioner Schreiner asked for clarification of "overriding consideration" statements as it relates to lots 19, 20 and 21. John Hesler commented that there were three (3) Overriding Considerations statements in the EIR involving lots 19, 20 and 21, the loss of the Quarry as a mineral resource, and the accumulative loss of open space. Commissioner Schreiner felt they should discuss 26 lots rather then 23 lots as lot 11 can be subdivided into 4 lots. Another issue was the realignment of Street "C' and lot 17 and the possibility of eliminating lots 20 and 21. They could eliminate those lots or combine them. Commissioner Gottlieb questioned the elimination of lots 19,20 and 21 which would reduce the geotechnical problems in that area. Commissioner Doran noted that with the elimination of lots 20 and 21, lot 19 could have a better driveway access with the realignment of Street "C". Even without considering the elimination of lots 20 and 21, Mr. Williams felt Street "C" should be realigned as it appears currently 30 feet to far into the hillside, suggesting a shift of approximately 30 feet towards the Quarry (lot 17). Commissioner Schreiner commented on the Findings which indicated the site was not physically suitable for the proposed type or density of J Planning Commission Minutes Approved 10/11/95 September 26,1995 f Page 3 development which could cover lots 19, 20 and 21. Also, there was a statement in the EER noting that a 17 lot subdivision would be environmentally more suitable. The Commission returned to the substantive issues with comments and consensus votes. #1, split vote for hillside lots (either 3 or 4). In discussing #2, Commissioner Stutz felt a road from lot 17 to the lake was not necessary as there was access at the other end already. She also noted the request to abandon half of the road coming off this property for parking with trailheads and an easement on lot 1 along one side of Street "C". Discussion ensued regarding the possible impact on the Silver property. Commissioner Gottlieb noted that if they were eliminating lots 20 and 21, she would like to see lot 19 after the reconfiguration. Everyone was in agreement. RE -OPENED PUBLIC HEARING Mrs. Silver, 24840 Prospect Avenue, discussed the possibility of the road behind their house being vacated. She was not in favor of this action as it impacts the safety of their property as she sends tractors and various machinery back there to cut dead trees, plow grass, and repair fences. Access would be denied them. If a fire started in that particular area, fire trucks could not get through. This is a severe impact. If the road is taken they will lose the back access and they will not be able to take care of any of that property. She further discussed taking away a double access to a large piece of property which technically could be developed, reducing the value of the property. She �r was concerned that some of her neighbors were not aware of this possibility. Mr. Williams commented on condition #2 which states prior to any abandonment, the applicant would have to have the agreement of everyone involved or there would have to be some type of condemnation action which would involve everyone. The City Council would have to determine some public purpose for doing it. The wording of condition #2 puts the burden on the applicant to get the agreement. If an agreement cannot be achieved, the acreage will be left out of the lot area calculations and the road stays as it is. Mr. Vidovich commented if the Silvers need this road, he would not want to deny them of it. There was a consensus by the Commission to delete the abandonment of access easements for right of way to the rear of lots 1 through 4. CLOSED PUBLIC HEARING Mr. Peterson discussed the realignment of Street "C" noting he had looked at the staking in the field. The center line of Street "C" is pushed up right at the toe of the slope that comes down from lots 19 through 22. In order to build a road centered on the centerline, the applicant would need to cut into the hillside and build retaining walls. From a standpoint of road construction, Street "C" should be moved towards lot 17. They could keep lot 17, improve the road and reduce the amount of cut on Street "C. The lot sizes of lots 16 and 17 would be reduced slightly to accommodate the shifting of �, the street. The Commission was in agreement. The Tentative Map will show an Planning Commission Minutes Approved 10/11/95 September 26,1995 Page 4 adequate access to the lake. Access easement to the lake and turnaround will be to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. Discussion ensued regarding #4, trailhead parking noting a consensus to leave Stonebrook with signing indicating pathway parking. The area will not be paved. Lots 1, 2, 3, and 4 will be reduced accordingly. A request for a pathway easement on the edge of lot 1 was discussed asking if a path easement was needed over the road right-of- way along lots 1 through 4. This will be left up to the Planning Director noting if the road is private, they will need a dedication; if it is public, a dedication will not be needed. The applicant provided an updated map showing their proposal for access to the hillside which was reviewed by the Commission. Tom Griffith, Pathway Committee; noted review of page 2 of the conditions of approval, in particular 5 k,1, m, and n. Mr. Williams clarified staff recommendation was to come up between 19, 20 and 21, the road path currently existing and utilize this as the main access point especially if they are deleting lots 20 and 21. Staffs other suggestion was to have easements over all the upper roadways that already exist there and over the emergency access. Staff felt they did not need both lot 23 and the pathway between lots 19 and 22. Everyone did agree that the pathway on lot 18 does not work. The elimination of lots 20 and 21 were addressed asking the applicant if he would rather have the creation of an open space lot with pathway easements. The open space lot would be under the common ownership and maintenance of the homeowners associate. J The applicant was asked if he would prefer, with the elimination of lots 20 and 21, those lots become a dedicated open space lot or would he prefer lots 19, 22 and 23 become larger with designated conservation easements. Mr. Vidovich commented he would prefer the lots become larger. It was noted that this would be creating lots with larger lot unit factors. There was a suggestion prior that the area become Parcel B which could not be developed. Discussion ensued regarding the conditions of approval (and Issue 5), 51, changing 10 feet to 20 feet, through lots 20 and 21; 5m, which the applicant does not agree with. Changed 5m wording from "lot 10" to "lot 11", "to include a crossing of the channel to the Preserve entrance." Mr. Peterson noted that the Town was not interested in maintaining the channel as it would be very difficult. The applicant is in agreement with the storm drainage easement between the lake and Juan Prado Mesa Preserve be a private storm drainage easement. The City Engineer discussion the background of Issue 6 by the City Engineer. He noted that he takes the recommendations from the Town geologist on technical issues and as such the Town has recommended the grading be done. There were concerns with the loss of trees and vegetation. There was a 4/2 opinion in favor of Issue 6. V Planning Commission Minutes Approved 10/11/95 September 26, 1995 Page 5 tw Discussion regarding Issue 7. There was a feeling with a 23 lot subdivision coming in, that they should ask both ends of Magdalena to share the traffic. Staff noted the current General Plan calls for this road to be a through road in the future. There was a 4/2 opinion in favor of Issue 7. Discussion ensued regarding Issue 8 and Dr. Martin's statement regarding the varying depths of the sewer line. The City Engineer would need to investigate the exact depth of the proposed sanitary sewer line. He discussed the use of plastic pipes used currently rather than clay pipes. For leak detection, they could use a video camera to check the pipes every 3 to 5 years. The costs for maintenance was felt to be low. Discussion continued regarding gravity flow and a lift station There was a 4/2 opinion to utilize a lift station and force main up Stonebrook Drive at this time or until more information is available regarding'the exact depth of the proposed sewer line. Mr. Williams explained the list in the staff report of some of the conditions which the applicant had indicated non -disagreement. Most of the items were already covered this evening. He discussed the remainder starting on page 5 (bullet (•) items, if numbered, would be 6, 8,10,11,13,14 and 15). The Commission was in agreement with staff recommendations with additional suggested wording. Bullet 13 (b, c) was modified to allow non -motorized boats; motorized only relative to emergency. Commissioner Gottlieb noted nowhere was it stated regarding at what point the homeowners take over the management of the lake. She was concerned with responsibility/liability of the lake management. Mr. Peterson responded that the maintenance and ownership of the lake begins at the recordation of the final map. The Town code has a two year warranty period that the subdivider is responsible for maintaining the entire subdivision The Commission could request, as part of the warranty period, that the applicant will also maintain the lake for that two year period. This mould have to worked out with the CC&Rs. Commissioner Finn did not feel this was necessary. To continue, Bullet 13 (e j) was discussed with the Commission agreeing potential buyers need to be aware of any constraints applied to this subdivision. Commissioner Gottlieb was concerned with view corridors to the lake for the upper lots. She suggested a general statement regarding the possible height limitations on some lots. Other suggestions were to consider in the tentative map language that the lower lots be considerate of the upper hillside views to the lake, and the staggering houses on the lots. Language in the tentative map and conditions of approval regarding views, possible height restrictions, varying setbacks, and the staggering of homes would need to be addressed by the Planning director and the City Attorney. Mr. Williams completed his discussion of the last two bullet items. Mr. Vidovich would rather not have artificial restrictions on the subdivision. He would like more general language stating that because of the lake, special design considerations should to made. It is very difficult to legislate taste. Commissioners Stutz and Finn did not feel height restrictions were needed. Planning Commission Minutes Approved 10/11/95 September 26,1995 Page 6 Commissioner Schreiner briefly discussed the potential subdivision noise factor and the recommendation by the Environmental Design Committee suggesting certain types of trees be planted in addition to the trees already there to would help with noise. She was concerned with the wording on the front of the tentative map noting once the map is accepted, all plantings will stop, asking if this was correct. Additional plantings (street tree plantings) should be considered. MOTION SECONDED AND PASSED BY CONSENSUS: Motion by Commissioner Finn, seconded by Commissioner Doran and passed by consensus to continue the applicant to the October 11th meeting at 5:30 p.m. The issues, conditions of approval, findings, etc. will be revised by the Planning Director to include the Commissioners comments, and with the City Attoiney preparing an "Overriding Considerations' statement for a final review and vote by the Planning Commission. i • 1: NIu IZ1. The meeting was adjourned by consensus at 10:00 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Lard Lonberger� Planning Secretary j 4 F