Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout05/10/2001Minutes of a Regular Meeting Approved 6/28/01 Town of Los Altos Hills PLANNING COMMISSION Thursday, May 10, 2001, 7:00 p.m. Council Chambers, 26379 Fremont Road cc: Cassettes (2) #7-01 1. ROLL CALL AND PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE The Planning Commission regular meeting was called to order at 7:00 p.m. in the Council Chambers at Town Hall. Present: Chairman Cottrell, Commissioners Gottlieb, Vitu, Clow &Wong Staff: Carl Cahill, Planning Director; Bob Graham, Contract Planner; Matt Weintraub, Associate Planner; Angelica Herrera, Assistant Planner; Lam Smith, Planning Secretary 2. PRESENTATIONS FROM THE FLOOR -None 3. PUBLIC HEARINGS 3.1 LANDS OF PERLOFF, 25601 Chapin Road (57 -01 -VAR); A request for a variance for a trellis to encroach into the side setback. Ms. Herrera introduced this item by noting the trellis location was at the level comer of a four foot wide ramp walkway on the west side of the site. The applicant is requesting a variance to allow the existing trellis (constructed without permit) to encroach into the side setback. The ramp walkway within the setback was constructed with a building permit in April, 2000. The trellis is eight feet from the property line and eight feet in height and Provides shade for the ramp. Discussion ensued regarding what is allowed within setbacks and what was pre-existing prior to purchase. OPENED PUBLIC HEARING Chris Tripoli, previous project architect, represented the owners who could not be at the meeting. Mr. Tripoli did not apply for an application for the trellis, only for the ramp 1 �h years ago which was approved. During the construction of the ramp, the contractor was asked to construct the trellis and was told that the owner would obtain the permit. Mr. Tripoli had no involvement with the trellis. CLOSED PUBLIC HEARING Planning Commission Minutes Approved 6/28/01 May 10, 2001 Page 2 Commissioner Vitu expressed concern regarding structures within setbacks although there has been no neighbor complaints. She would have liked to hear from the applicants. Commissioner Wong disclosed he had visited the site and spoke to the owner. There was no reason given for the trellis. He clarified that they do not allow eight foot structures within setbacks and the applicants never applied for a permit (illegal structure, no permit). Commissioner Gottlieb felt the structure fits in but it is close to the property line. The next door neighbor may want to develop in that area of the property line in the future and they would loose the 30 foot setback openness. Commissioner Cottrell and Clow agreed (within eight feet of the property Zine). Chairman Cottrell felt this is only an architectural feature which serves no purpose. MOTION SECONDED AND PASSED: Motion by Commissioner Clow and seconded by Commissioner Gottlieb to deny the request for a variance for encroachment into the side setback for a trellis, Lands of Perloff, 25601 Chapin Road, as cited in Attachment 1. AYES: Chairman Cottrell, Commissioners Wong, Vitu, Gottlieb & Clow NOES: None The appeal process was explained. 3.2 LANDS OF HUANG, 27580 Arastradero Road (203 -00 -TM -ND - GD); A request to subdivide a 12.60 acre parcel into six (6) lots, and consideration of a proposed Negative Declaration. Bob Graham, Contract Planner, introduced this item, discussing the following: the existing setting; the background of the project; the landslide repair area; access; lot design and building sites, lot by lot; the geotechnical review; drainage; and committee recommendations. In conclusion, the Commission must determine if the proposed subdivision is in compliance with the General Plan, and if the proposed lots would allow development to occur which meets the provisions of the Zoning and Site Development Ordinances, and the Design Guidelines. Upon direction from the Commission, staff will modify conditions as needed, and proceed to the City Council for action, or return to the Commission if any significant redesign is requested. Staff has met with the applicants and their engineers asking them to study other driveway locations that would meet the fire department and city engineer standards. Staff also asked for a supplemental geotechnical report showing that the landslide area could be stable and a driveway could run through it. The Town's geotechnical consultant has reviewed the report. Staff further asked them to change the proposed conservation easements to include a combination of the landslide repair area as indicated in the General Plan, to include steep slopes within the conservation area and to protect significant tree cover, where possible, to provide continuity. Staff further asked the applicant to prepare a conceptual landscape plan showing the retaining walls designed for erosion control mitigation within the landslide repair and driveway area. Staff also asked the applicant for more tree clusters to help with open areas from �fkw Arastradero Road and I-280 to improve the conservation easement. He clarified that there has been five to six substantial changes to the original tentative map to improve the Planning Commission Minutes Approved 628/01 May 10, 2001 Page 3 subdivision. Letters have been received from Jan Fenwick and Mr. and Mrs. Mills. Mr. and Mills are the owners of Lot 4 on Saddle Mountain Drive, immediately to the west of the proposed subdivision. They are the most directly impacted by this proposed subdivision and subsequent development. Also, Mr. Graham referred to several minor changes to the staff report. Staff supports the pathway committee recommendation for a type 2B path be provided within Arastradero Road right of way, as close to the property line and fence as possible, away from Arastradero Road as possible, then coming back to the guard rail. Also, the Pathway Committee is recommending a 20 foot easement along Lot 6, along I-280, with a natural trail within that 20 feet. Commissioner Gottlieb asked if there were any provisions for a left hand turning lane to enter the property? Mr. Graham stated that the Town engineer did not recommend a left hand turning lane. He also stated that there was no traffic study done on this small project. Commissioner Gottlieb felt the area was rather dangerous and there was a need to review the entrance to the subdivision. Mr. Graham continued by discussing the driveway on Lot 2 which will stabilize the slide area. The applicants had explored a driveway from Stirrup Way but could not obtain easements. It was noted that the retaining wall heights were no higher than three feet. Further discussion ensued regarding the sewer system. OPENED PUBLIC HEARING Sophie Huang, 27580 Arastradero Road, applicant, reviewed her letter provided to the Planning Commission discussing the following: driveway on Lot 2 and 3, alternative driveway alignments; extensive geotechnical investigation undertaken and recommendations prepared and revised to address concerns; the sanitary sewer easement from Saddle Mountain Drive; and the extensive areas of conservation easements. She added that they remain concerned with the Pathways Committee recommendation to require a pathway along Arastradero Road and to provide a 20 foot easement parallel to I- 280 along the proposed Lot 6. She felt a five foot pathway along Arastradero Road outside the tree line would be difficult to construct and the steep drop-off near I-280 would be disruptive and require retaining walls. Staff believed that a four foot pathway, situated between the trees and the fence line, would be adequate and would minimize the construction problems. Of greater concern is the pathway along Lot 6 which will be very intrusive to the owners of that lot, given the configuration. It is only a short distance down Arastradero Road to Purissima Road and a pathway along that road parallel to I-280 already exists for the most part. She believed that the proposed easement on Lot 6 along I-280 could be reduced to 10 feet to contain a 5 foot path between the existing fence line and trees. While this is preferable to the Committee's recommendation, she remains concerned about the proximity of the easement to development on Lot 6. ihw Planning Commission Minutes Approved 6/28/01 May 10, 2001 Page 4 Mark Helton, Giuliani & Kull„ project engineer, discussed the sewer system and the pump station located on Lot 6 at the end of the driveway. He further discussed drainage and condition #9 requirements. Discussion ensued regarding Lot 3 and the constraints of the building site, the slope on the driveways, and retaining walls with minimum impact. Commissioner Gottlieb felt Lot 3 was encumbered. Mr. Cahill noted that they looked at a five lot subdivision but with the improvements provided by the applicant, six lots work. Also, the driveway for Lot 3 has been reviewed for months. Lot 3 will still have good numbers for MDA/MFA. Lance Mills, 14414 Saddle Mountain Drive, felt it was difficult getting on and off Arastradero Road. He read the staff report and he is not against the development. All of their concerns relate to Lot 2 as he felt it was the most intrusive of the proposed six lots and is the primary cause of several of the issues raised in the staff report; Lot 3 being next. One of the arguments for approving the subdivision is that the property currently supports five dwellings and that the incremental impact of subdividing into six lots is minimal but the potential impact of Lot 2 could be significant. The specific issues of Lot 2 must be addressed. The development of Lot 2 as proposed has a potential negative impact on the views from his property, Arastradero Road, I-280 and the Town residents to the east of I- 280. Its long driveway can have both a scenic impact and a significant geotechnical impact. He would prefer the driveway not run over the existing slide area. He was also concerned with the grading for the pad and parking area for Lot 2 and water run off with the proposed siting of the dwelling on Lot 2 which could also increase geological instability on the slope immediately to the east of his property. He summarized by stating the protection of views needs to be addressed now, not just at the Site Development plan review. The siting of the dwelling on Lot 2, in particular the elevation of its parking area and lower floor, is critical. Although much can be done in the design of the dwelling, the elevation on the lot, which will be determined at the time of the approval of the subdivision and its improvements, may be the most significant factor with respect to protecting views and controlling geological instability. Moving the development to a lower elevation would reduce the vertical rise of the driveway from Twin Oaks Court and possibly reduce the total length. Short of denying development on Lot 2, moving the development to a lower elevation is the single factor that can mitigate the negative effects of this proposal. Sandy Humphries, Environmental Design Committee, voiced concern with Lot 3 with the potential house sitting in the middle of a drainage area. She asked for consideration regarding holding water or eliminating Lot 3. She asked if the applicant had considered pavers for the driveway which would slow down the velocity and allow some water to seep in. She requested open style fencing in the conservation easement, and 113 drought tolerant coverage to help with erosion control. 4 4 Planning Commission Minutes Approved 628/01 May 10, 2001 Page 5 Dot Schreiner, 14301 Saddle Mountain Road, was also concerned with Lot 3 with an average slope of 34.3 and with the access to the property which already creates a problem. Also, the stand of trees reduces the visibility, suggesting a traffic study. She also expressed concern for the Mr. and Mrs. Mills and their view across Lot 2. Bob Stutz, Pathways Committee, reiterated the Committee's request This is a standard request so they will be able to meander around trees, when necessary. Chairman Cottrell questioned this swampy area for a path. Mark Helton supported the request that the highest point of the house on Lot 2 be below the finished floor of the Mill house (445 feet?). Regarding the driveway entrance, he believed there are currently four or five houses on the property so they are not adding much more traffic. He would prefer not adding additional pavement if not necessary. He can work with staff regarding a traffic study, if required. Regarding the pathway easement along the I-280 corridor, the owner would rather not have it since it would be next to a house as opposed to along a street. If it does need to go in they would prefer a 10 foot easement rather than 20 feet. They could design the pathway indicting the location of all the trees, if needed. They are just looking for as much buffer between the house and pathway. CLOSED PUBLIC HEARING Commissioner Clow felt the provision for the height on Lot 2 generous which would fully preserve the view for the neighbors. He discussed the three possibilities for the driveway: 1) 20% slope in the front; 2) going across the neighbor's property; 3) and the proposed driveway. He felt that once the landslide area is stabilized it will be an appropriate place for the driveway. Lot 3 has good MDA/MIFA numbers and any potential buyer will know what they have in advance. He would support a 10 foot pathway easement. Commissioner Gottlieb felt Lot 3 was encumbered with the driveway design. Perhaps the subdivision should be reduced to five lots. She felt some of the problems with the subdivision involved keeping the smaller houses on the property. She would support a left tum lane on Amstradem Road or at least a study. She could not support Lot 3. Commissioner Wong liked the subdivision and appreciated all the work done regarding drainage, grading, lessening the impact on the environment with low retaining walls, and repairing the slide areas. He also would support a 10 foot pathway easement. Commissioner Vitu had been concerned with the driveway coming across Lot 3. However, after listening to the discussion, much effort has gone into finding the optimal route to Lot 2. She agreed with Commissioner Clow regarding this issue. There is a benefit with repairing the landslide with low retaining walls keeping the grades below 15%. She was concerned with drainage but there are conditions which will be monitored by engineering. She would not support an off road pathway at this time as it does invade the privacy on Lot 3. At the very most, she would support a 10 foot pathway easement. Chairman Cottrell agreed with the majority regarding Lot 3 and the work done, although he would have preferred a driveway come from the Mills property. He supported the request that the highest point of the house Planning Commission Minutes Approved 6/28/01 May 10, 2001 Page 6 on Lot 2 be below the finished floor of the Mill house (445 feet?), and a 10 foot pathway easement along I-280. Discussion ensued regarding review of the Negative Declaration and appropriate changes to same. MOTION SECONDED AND PASSED: Motion by Commissioner Gottlieb and seconded by Chairman Cottrell to approve a 10 foot pathway easement on Lot 6 abutting I-280 to the Fenwick property line. AYES: Chairman Cottrell & Commissioners Gottlieb & Wong NOES: Commissioners Vitu & Clow MOTION SECONDED AND PASSED: Motion by Commissioner Wong and seconded by Commissioner Clow to recommend to the City Council approval for a Negative Declaration and Tentative Map for a six lot subdivision, Lands of Huang, 27580 Arastradero Road, subject to the conditions of approval, including adoption of the Mitigated Negative Declaration, approval of the Mitigation Monitoring Plan, and approval of the Tentative Map with the following changes/additions: add to #1, as shown on the applicant's Tentative Map, Type H foundations are required; add to #3, the applicant shall grant a 10 foot pathway easement on Lot 6 abutting Interstate 280...; add to #5, All conservation easement planting as shown on the conceptual landscape plan shall be installed prior to finalization of the Building Permit for the last Lot. The applicant shall post a deposit or bond equal to the cost of labor and materials prior to recording of the Final Map.; add to #9, the applicant shall prepare a written report examining the feasibility of providing onsite drainage detention systems for each lot; #15, The applicant shall conduct a Traffic Study. This study should address the concerns of peak hours commute turning movements, especially left turn movements; and include appropriate recommendations as needed. Any recommended intersection design improvements shall be installed prior to approval of the Final Map by the City Council. All street improvements shall be constructed to the satisfaction of the City Engineer.; #16, a Type IIB pathway shall be constructed along the Arastradero Road frontage between the existing fence and the row of trees to the satisfaction of the City Engineer prior to approval of the Final Map.; 19a, the highest point of the ridge of any structure located on Lot 2 shall not exceed the finished first floor elevation of the existing residence located to the west (Mill residence); and #26, Double pane windows and insulation shall be provided to meet the Uniform Building Code and reduce noise levels to 45 dB(a) internally. External noise levels at entries to homes may be reduced to 60dB(a) or less by provision of solid entry walls or court yards. Thick landscaping will also provide some noise buffering. DISCUSSION OF ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION additions: add to #VI, A traffic Study shall be conducted to determine any hazards to safety and any recommendations for implementation. 64W MITIGATION MONITORING PROGRAM: ADD #9, Traffic Study and Implementation. 4 Planning Commission Minutes May 10, 2001 Page 7 AYES: Chairman Cottrell & Commissioner Vitu, Wong & Clow NOES: Commissioner Gottlieb This item will be scheduled for a City Council agenda. 4. OLD BUSINESS 4.1 Report from subcommittees -none 5. NEW BUSINESS -none 6. REPORT FROM THE CITY COUNCIL MEETING Approved 6/28/01 6.1 Planning Commission Representative for May 3r0 — cancelled 6.2 Planning Commission Representative for May 17th - Commissioner Cottrell 6.3 Planning Commission Representative for June 7� -Commissioner Gottlieb 7. APPROVAL OF MINUTES 7.1 Approval of the April 12, 2001 minutes kw PASSED BY CONSENSUS: To approve the April 12, 2001 minutes. 7.2 Approval of the April 26, 2001 minutes PASSED BY CONSENSUS: To approve the April 26, 2001 minutes 8. REPORT FROM FAST TRACK MEETING- MAY 1 2001 8.1 LANDS OF SCHILLING, 13650 Paseo Del Roble (26-01-ZP-SD-GD); A request for a Site Development Permit for a new residence. Approved with conditions. 9. REPORT FROM SITE DEVELOPMENT MEETING—MAY 1 & 8 2001 9.1 LANDS OF KOLKOWITZ & FREI, 26830 Elena Road (28-01-ZP-SD); A request for a Site Development Permit for a pool. Approved with conditions May 1, 2001. 9.2 LANDS OF ROME, 26883 Dezahara Way (51-01-ZP-SD); A request for a Site Development Permit for an addition to an existing residence, and secondary dwelling unit. Approved with conditions May 1, 2001. Planning Commission Minutes May 10, 2001 Page 8 Approved &28/01 9.3 LANDS OF PARVARANDEH, 25538 Adobe Lane (90-01-ZP-SD); A request for a Site Development Permit for additions to an existing residence. Approved with conditions May 1, 2001. 9.4 LANDS OF RASMUSSEN, 27589 Samuel Lane (56-01-ZP-SD); A request for a Site Development Permit for an addition to an existing residence. Approved with conditions May 8, 2001. 10. ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned by consensus at 9:40 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Lani Smith Planning Secretary