Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout01/10/19964 Minutes of a Regular Meeting Approved 1/24/% Town of Los Altos Hills PLANNING COMMISSION Wednesday, January 10, 1996,7:00 p.m. Council Chambers, 26379 Fremont Road cc: Cassettes #1-96(3) 1. ROLL CALL AND . OF AT LEGIANCE The Planning Commission meeting was called to order at 7:08 p.m. in the Council Chambers at Town Hall. Present: Chairman McMahon, Commissioners Gottlieb, Cheng, Doran & Stutz Absent: Commissioners Finn & Schreiner Staff: Jeff Peterson, City Manager/City Engineer; Curtis Williams, Planning Director; Suzanne Davis, Planner; Susan Manca, Planner; Land Lonberger, Planning Secretary 2. PRRSRNTATTONS FROM THE FLOOR -none 3. PUBT TC HEARINGS 3.1 PROPOSED NEGATIVE DECLARATION FOR LANDS OF HAU for a proposed three lot subdivision of 4.5 acres, located at 13901 W. Edith Road, also known as 25561 W. Fremont Road, and cancellation of the Williamson Act Contract. This item was continued to January 24, 1996. 3.2 LANDS OF WAYMAN, 26220 Moody Road (206-95-ZP-SD-GD); A request for a Site Development Permit for a major addition/remodel. Ms. Davis introduced this item noting there had been a letter received from the Wayman's attorney regarding conditions #20, 21, and 23. Also provided to the Commission was a memo from Ms. Davis noting changes to conditions 20, 21, and 23. Commissioner Gottlieb asked if the conservation easement along the creek was dedicated at the time of the subdivision? Ms. Davis responded, yes, it was, however, it did not follow top of bank for the entire area. The letter from the Wayman's attorney commented on the fact that it was inappropriate to ask the applicants to pay for the construction of a Type IIB path as the native path which is already in place is consistent with the native path that connects to the remainder of the subdivision. The Town has already been paid for the construction of these native paths out of the subdivision bond funds. For the same reason, requiring the applicants to install a split rail fence at their Planning Commission Minutes Approved 1/24/96 January 10, 1996 Page 2 expense is also inequitable, as the split rail fence built in front of the remainder of the subdivision was constructed by the Town using proceeds of the performance bond of the subdivision, not funds provided by the individual owners of the other lots. Mr. Peterson commented that the Town had been in negotiations with the bonding company for over a year. The improvements that were done did not include the construction of a Type IIB pathway along the creek. Bond funds received have already been exhausted with all the improvements that have been accomplished to date. The installation of the split rail fence was primarily for safety. Mr. Peterson was in agreement with removing the request to construct a split rail fence as it was not needed for safety reasons. Regarding the Type IIB path, Mr. Peterson was not opposed to the native path with minor improvements (clearing of some branches, mowing, minor grading from the driveway down to the flat area). Staff has reviewed the area of the requested additional 5 foot pathway easement and after discussing this with the Waymans, they felt the request could be deleted (#20). However, if the Waymans move the fence to the easement line, planting on the Moody Road side of the fence would be right in the pathway easement which would not be acceptable. Commissioner Stutz clarified that the fence on Moody Road which is inside the property line perhaps 10 feet is the grapestake fence. It was noted that there is a 5 foot wide pathway easement outside the fence but inside their property line. Whether this L pathway easement is native or IIB, some branches need to be cleared. �r OPENED PUBLIC HEARING Bob Wayman, 26220 Moody Road, discussed the second phase of construction; the character of the property; a country look to the project; and maintaining the old home. He deferred questions regarding the design of the project to his architect. Michael Moyer, 430 Sherman Avenue, Palo Alto, discussed the design, preserving some of the older features of the residence; the elevation drawings; the English charm of Adobe Lodge; using the same color palate; and the possibility of considering a change in roofing materials. Bob Wayman, 26220 Moody Road, further discussed the request for a IIB path and the misunderstanding of the need for additional easements. The key issue is planting the creek which was originally a condition of the subdivision. He was willing to plant his section of the creek, however the reason for moving the fence out of that area was due to the fence being located right at the top of the creek bed. There needs to be a little room for the plantings located between the creek and pathway. He also felt the request for the IIB path was not necessary and it was more in character with the area to keep the path native. The next item discussed was the dedication of a conservation easement along Adobe Creek. Currently the existing conservation and creek easements on the [ property constitute 94% of property. He would prefer not adding the additional Planning Commission Minutes Approved 1/24/96 January 10, 1996 Page 3 easement. If it is required, he would like to make sure the driveway and gates can be located in the easement. The need for the driveway easement is very important as the bridge serves three lots. If the driveway is located outside of the conservation easement, the other residences would have to drive up close to his front door, make a right turn, proceeding to drive by his garage and kitchen to get onto their property. The last item discussed related to condition #23, soil contamination clean up noting a small area of contamination. Mr. Wayman has met with two environmental engineers regarding the contamination. They did not believe that the contamination could have moved uphill toward the house, 30 feet. However, they still do not know. Mr. Wayman proposed adding to the condition stating he would hire an engineer for appropriate testing near the footprint of the house to see if there was a problem, and if so, they could propose a plan for removal of the affected soil, if any, prior to building the house. Unfortunately, he felt the new wording for condition #23 presented at the meeting was worse than the original wording because it basically indicates that the applicant cannot do anything until they (the applicant) indemnify the Town of all financial responsibility for the tanks. Mr. Wayman provided a copy of the subdivision conditions of approval noting the requirement to complete the clean up of the tanks. Over a year ago, the Town hired Wilsey and Ham to analyze the remaining subdivision conditions of approval to be completed which included #26 relating to the underground fuel tanks in the subdivision. He does not want this to delay the start of construction. He preferred the wording provided by his attorney. 4W Les Earnest, Pathways Chair, discussed the request for a Type IIB path. This is standard for roadside paths (all weather paths). CLOSED PUBLIC TESTIMONY Mr. Peterson discussed the Bellucci subdivision and the standard subdivision conditions. A subdivider is required to obtain a bond for the subdivision improvements. The bond is an insurance policy to complete the improvements required by the Town. This particular subdivider unfortunately died during the process. The property ultimately went back to the lenders. The Town then called the bond from the bonding company and negotiations proceeded for over a year. A settlement (dollar figure) was finally reached with the bonding company which appeared to be enough to complete the improvements. Properties have always been owned by the residents or the bank. The Town was acting as "custodian' of the insurance settlement to complete as many improvements as possible. Unfortunately, the bond dollars were not enough to complete all of the improvements. The fuel tanks were removed as part of the improvements. However, the contamination of the soil was not known at the time of negotiations with the bonding company. At this time, the Town has spent all of the bond money. Further discussion ensued regarding the subdivision improvements. Planning Commission Minutes Approved 1/24/96 January 10, 1996 Page 4 Bob Wayman, applicant, noted that at the time they purchased the property, no one knew of the tank leakage. No one knew until the tanks were removed. He felt the developer was responsible for the clean up. The bond was their insurance. He asked if a public agency could be held responsible? His attorney recommended that he not sign the document referenced in condition #22. He cannot, in good conscience, release the Town from a liability with one day notice on something that the Town has been involved in. He further discussed the location of the removed tanks and the testing process in the location of the new construction which should only take a few weeks. Time involved to do all the tests (SCV WD and Santa Clara County Health Department) which may be required cannot be predicted. He is willing to hire experts to determine an estimated cost to clean up the other site, away from the new construction. He will have tests done on the soil in the area of the proposed addition to show that the soil is safe for construction with minimal risk. Mr. Wayman was willing to assume all liability for the construction and repair of the house associated with ground water contamination and to hold the Town harmless as stated in the attorney's letter of January 10th. Commissioner Doran suggested letting the applicant go ahead with the project and still be responsible for the testing of the soil and the clean up. She supported the Type IIB pathway request; she did not agree on the split rail fence as it was an unnecessary expense; she was not in favor of additional conservation easements, suggesting restricting development to the top of bank; and she suggested letting the project go forward with a stipulation that the property owners proceed with testing and the cleaning up of tank sites in a timely manner. It was clarified that there would be no issuance of building permits until a report is presented to the Town indicating testing results and a plan of action, if there is contamination. Also, the applicant would hold the Town harmless if there were any impacts on construction. Mr. Williams felt they should rely on Mr. Wayman's experts and ultimately the test results be reviewed by the appropriate agencies. Commissioner Doran complimented the architect on the design and character of the project. Further discussion ensued regarding the Wilsey & Ham letter dated September 28,1994 relating to the remaining items to be completed, and condition #16. Commissioner Gottlieb suggested adding to condition #3 to install 5 foot wide planting area between native pathway and creek (plant as required by Hardesty) and add to condition #20 regarding any fencing along the path may not have sharp obtrusions. She also complimented the architect on a beautiful design Commissioner Cheng agreed with the recommendation of the Pathway Committee for a Type IIB pathway. Regarding the conservation easement, she was willing to reduce the 25 feet, keeping the creek open (no planting). Commissioner Stutz disagreed with the request for a Type IIB pathway. She liked the project and felt the applicant had donated enough conservation easements to the Town. Planning Commission Minutes Approved 1/24/96 January 10, 1996 Page 5 MOTION SECONDED AND PASSED: Motion by Commissioner Doran and seconded by Commissioner Gottlieb to approve the Lands of Wayman Site Development Permit for a major addition/remodel of an existing residence, with the following amendments/changes to the conditions of approval: #3, add wording to indicate any planting within the Adobe Creek conservation easement shall be native riparian species and any planting within the conservation easement on the south side of the house shall be native species, as approved by the Planning Department or the Site Development Committee. #20, change to the fust sentence noting a type IIB path shall be constructed below Moody Road within the existing pathway easement, west of the driveway. Delete the last five sentences, adding that any fencing along the path may not have sharp obtrusions. #21, delete the request to dedicate a conservation easement along Adobe Creek to the Town. #23, change wording noting that testing shall be done to determine that there is no soil contamination associated with the underground fuel storage tanks in the areas of construction and/or to recommend measures to remediate any contaminated soil which is identified. Test results to be submitted to the Town prior to acceptance of plans for building plan check. The condition will include wording that the applicants shall indemnify and hold harmless the Town regarding impacts of construction on soil contamination and of any impacts of contaminated soil in the areas of construction (agreement prepared by the City Attorney). AYES: Chairman McMahon, Commissioners Cheng, Stutz, Gottlieb & Doran NOES: None ABSENT: Commissioners Finn & Schreiner This approval is subject to a 21 day appeal period. 3.3 LANDS OF CHANG, 26228 Scarff Way (152-95-ZP-SD); A request for a Site Development Permit for a new residence, pool, spa, secondary unit, and greenhouse. Ms. Manca introduced this item. The plan was reviewed at a Site Analysis meeting in 1994, as mentioned in the staff report. In attendance at the 1994 meeting, among others, were Commissioners Cheng and Stutz. Commissioner Stutz indicated that the Commissioners present at the Site Analysis meeting liked the plan presented, although they suggested not moving the house any higher on the property. The current house design is considerably larger than the original house design proposed. Originally, a Planning Commission Minutes Approved 1/24/% January 10, 1996 Page 6 pool was not discussed. Further discussion ensued regarding the design differences between the 1994 proposal and the current plan. Commissioner Gottlieb thought the secondary dwelling over the garage violated the Town Municipal Code as it increases the structure size beyond the 1,000 square foot maximum for a secondary dwelling unit. The Planning Director discussed the interpretation of a secondary dwelling unit. Commissioner Stutz noted the request from the Fire Marshall for a 20 foot wide driveway. She did not feel this was consistent with requests made on previous properties. OPENED PUBLIC HEARING Milton Chang, 26228 Scarff Way, gave a brief history of the project relating to the Site Analysis meeting of 1994, noting the current house design has been increased from the previous design. The applicant and their architect have been working with staff regarding the recommendations made at the previous meeting. He noted support from his neighbors (letter of support received from Mrs. Codispoti). Ed McEachron,100 Edgewood, San Francisco, project architect, discussed the project; size of the lot; siting of the house so the lot would never be subdivided; keeping as much of the land as possible available for landscaping; not a highly visible lot; low impact on neighborhood; lot dominated by large trees; highly screened lot; secondary unit over the garage to concentrate structures; and the house design following the contours. Bill Kull, Giuliani & Kull, project engineer, discussed the siting of the house as being set back significantly from Scarff Way. They tried moving the location of the house several times, however the house in the present location follows the contours. If the house was moved farther down the property, it would require more cut into the knoll. Mr. Kull felt they had addressed staff s concerns. He discussed condition #11, pathway easement, requesting an additional 5 feet rather than an additional 10 feet which would be compatible with the neighbor's path (Codispoti) and it would allow the applicant more flexibility with plantings. He agreed that in some spots, the path could be a little wider to meander. Les Earnest, Pathways Chair, discussed the request for an additional 10 foot pathway easement to keep the path away from the Eucalyptus trees. Milton Chang, applicant, preferred removing the Eucalyptus trees, replacing them with more native, fast growing trees and still give the additional 5 feet for the pathway easement. Rebecca Coleman, 14440 Manuella Road, was in support of the project. CLOSED PUBLIC TESTIMONY `7 Planning Commission Minutes Approved 1/24/96 January 10,19% Page 7 Commissioner Gottlieb liked the design of the house. Unfortunately the house is 27 feet in height sitting on the top of a very visible ridge. She discussed the visible ridge and preservation of hilltops quoting from the Municipal Code. She requested a lower profile house. Commissioner Cheng, however, did not consider this a hilltop house. Commissioner Stutz was concerned with the visibility of the project from Snell Lane. She would prefer they reduce the height by 3 feet. She did not like the secondary dwelling unit over the garage, and objected to the design of the road (20' wide). She did like the pool area and the interior of the house. Chairman McMahon discussed the cross sections of the project and the minimal amount of earthwork. She agreed with the placement of the house, however it does not follow the Design Guidelines regarding rural atmosphere, bulk and mass. For this reason, she could not support this project. Milton Chang, applicant, noted that the original house plan was 27 feet in height. If the house moves back 5 feet, would there be a concern with cutting into the knoll? MOTION SECONDED AND FAILED: Motion by Commissioner Doran, seconded by Commissioner Stutz and failed by the following roll call vote to approve the Site Development Permit for a new residence, second unit, greenhouse, pool, and spa, Lands 4 of Chang, with a change to condition #11, changing "an additional 10 feet" to "an additional 5 feet". AYES: Commissioners Cheng & Doran NOES: Chairman McMahon, Commissioners Gottlieb & Stutz ABSENT: Commissioners Finn & Schreiner MOT1ON SECONDED AND PASSED: Motion by Commissioner Gottlieb and seconded by Commissioner Stutz to deny the application, Lands of Chang, without prejudice. AYES: Chairman McMahon, Commissioners Stutz, Cheng, Doran & Gottlieb NOES: None ABSENT: Commissioners Finn & Schreiner The Commission reiterated the areas of concern which included the following: following guidelines regarding bulk and mass, the rural character, height of the house on a knoll, and the secondary dwelling unit over the garage. The general consensus was that the character of the original design was significantly more in keeping with the guidelines than the character of the design currently presented. Brief break at 10:20 p.m Planning Commission Minutes Approved 1/24/96 January 10, 1996 Page 8 4 3.4 LANDS OF ROUSE, 27979 Baker Lane (106-95-ZP-SD); A request for a Site Development Permit for a secondary dwelling unit. Ms. Davis introduced this item. The applicant had received approval from the Santa Clara County Health Department on the septic system. However, there are limitations; they cannot have a kitchen in the secondary unit because they cannot add enough expansion fields on this property. The County has limited fixtures to a toilet and a sink only. The unit would have to connect to a sewer system some time in the future in order to include kitchen and shower facilities. Technically, this unit would be an accessory building. Ms. Davis continued, noting the location of the structure is not the intended location. The structure will be shifted back so it would be out of the setbacks. There will be some grading required to restore the drainage course. The abatement process and some of the current clean up efforts which have taken place on the site were also discussed. OPENED PUBLIC HEARING Larry Rouse, 27979 Baker Lane, applicant, provided some back ground on acquiring the house; the opportunity to purchase the bungalow; the possibility of his mother-in-law living in the unit after retirement; the movers not being aware of the need for grading permits; affordable housing; the letters from the neighbors voicing concern; working to correct concerns regarding debris and junk on the site; and saving the bungalow. Richard Andrews, 28080 Horseshoe Court, requested denial of the project due to the overwhelming opposition. He discussed the points highlighted in his letter of November 28,1995. Les Earnest, Pathway Chair, proposed an off-road path easement as shown on the map. The Pathway Committee also requested an easement over Baker Lane. The Planning Director commented that they could only request a portion of the path on Baker Lane. Jim Welch, 27870 Baker Lane, representing the Toth family, voiced concern with the project. Bob Morgan, 13201 La Cresta, voiced opposition to the project as he felt it was an eye sore. Glen and Mary Jobe, 27840 Baker Lane, voiced opposition to the project. Jack Stinger, 27861 Baker Lane, gave a brief history of the property. He discussed previous rentals, the drainage, and his opposition to the project. Ken Clifford, 13163 La Cresta Drive, felt the project was flawed with problems. He opposed the project and requested denial. 4 Planning Commission Minutes Approved 1/24/% January 10, 1996 Page 9 Guy Jinkerson, Environmental Design Committee, felt the project should be denied based on the lack of cooperation with law enforcement agencies, aesthetic issues, and something not desirable in the community. Mr. Rouse, applicant, commented that they were working on the landscaping to improve the looks of the property and correcting past violations. He does not want to create problems. He will work towards improving the property to Los Altos Hills standards. Theresa McDermott -Rouse, applicant, discussed the project and the motive for purchasing the bungalow which would eventually be for her mother after her retirement. CLOSED PUBLIC TESTIMONY Discussion ensued. It was noted that currently there is a second kitchen in the residence which needs to be removed. The applicant agreed with the request. The Commissioners noted disapproval of the bungalow at this location, noting there are many things to be done on the property prior to placing a secondary unit on the site. The unit is not suppose to encroach on the neighbors and is too close to the swale. Commissioner Stutz did not agree that the bungalow was incompatible for the site. The 060 structure could be painted a darker color to blend in. The fact that they cannot get a septic system should preclude the approval of a secondary dwelling unit. Chairman McMahon voiced the need for complete drawings showing details of the placement, etc. She did not feel a change in the color to match the main house would be appropriate as the present color is appropriate for a California bungalow. Secondary and/or accessory structures should be sited to have a rural, informal relationship with the main building. MOTION SECONDED AND PASSED: Motion by Commissioner Cheng and seconded by Commissioner Doran to deny the Site Development Permit for a secondary dwelling unit, Lands of Rouse. AYES: Chairman McMahon, Commissioners Stutz, Gottlieb, Cheng & Doran NOES: None ABSENT: Commissioners Finn & Schreiner The appeal process for a denial by the Planning Commission was explained to the applicant. MOTION SECONDED AND PASSED BY CONSENSUS: Not to continue the meeting past 11:00 p.m. All remaining agenda items (3.5 and 7.1) will be continued to the following meeting. Planning Commission Minutes Approved 1/24/96 January 10,19% Page 10 4 3.5 PROPOSED REVISED PATHWAY ELEMENT OF THE GENERAL PLAN; Amendments to the Site Development and Subdivision Ordinances Regarding Pathway Requirements; and Proposed Negative Declaration. 4. REPORT FROM THE CITY COUNCIL MEETING 4.1 The City Council meeting for January 3rd was canceled 4.2 Planning Commission Representative for the January 17th meeting - Commissioner Gottlieb. 5. OLD BUSINESS 5.1 Report from subcommittees. 6. NEW BUSINESS None. 7. APPROVAL OF MINI TIES REPORT4W 7.1 Approval of the December 13,1995 minutes. 8. ;•u THE SITE DEVELOPMENTCOMMITTEE MEETING None. 0 The meeting was adjourned by consensus at 11:40 p.m. Respectfully submitted, LaniLonbe`` Planning Secretary 4