Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout12/13/2001`1F Minutes of a Regular Meeting Approved 1/10/02 Town of Los Altos Hills PLANNING COMMISSION Thursday, December 13, 2001, 7:00 p.m. Council Chambers, 26379 Fremont Road cc: Cassettes(3) #18-01 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 Wong, Commissioners Gottlieb, Cottrell, Vitu & Clow Staff: Carl Cahill, Planning Director; Angelica Herrera, Assistant Planner; Matt Weintraub, previous Assistant Planner; Bob Graham, Planning Consultant; Lam Smith, Planning Secretary 2. PRESENTATIONS FROM THE FLOOR -none `r 3. PUBLIC HEARINGS 3.1 PROPOSED OPTIONS FOR MODIFYING TOWN HEIGHT AND SETBACK ORDINANCES TO PROMOTE ARCHITECTURAL DIVERSITY AND ADJUSTABLE SETBACKS FOR LARGER OR TALLER HOMES (continued from October 25, 2001). The Planning Director provided an overview of the previous discussion and public comments. The proposed changes to the existing setback and maximum height requirements will be reviewed by Bill Maston. The Planning Director would like the final draft to be presented at the January 10, 2002 meeting for review prior to City Council review. OPENED PUBLIC HEARING Bill Maston, 384 Castro Street, Mountain View, architect, noted that they are not trying to create more restrictions which may, in effect, create a Pandora's box. He discussed the examples that were provided in the staff report. Further discussion ensued regarding view corridors, site and placement to prevent structures lining up in a straight row, irregular lots, pitch roofs and wall heights. CLOSED PUBLIC HEARING kmw Planning Commission Minutes Approved 1/10/02 December 13, 2001 Page 2 4 PASSED BY CONSENSUS: To direct staff and Mr. Maston to make needed changes resulting from discussion, to be presented and reviewed at the January 10, 2002 Planning Commission meeting prior to a recommendation to the City Council. 3.2 CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION/AT&T, 2350 Old Page Mill Road (238 -01 -CUP -Renewal); A request for a Conditional Use Permit renewal for an existing, previously approved wireless communications facility. Ms. Herrera introduced this item which is a request to renew the Conditional Use Permit for the existing wireless communications facility previously approved on February 5, 1997. She also noted that there has been no neighborhood complaints to date. OPENED PUBLIC HEARING Philip Thomas, AT&T Wireless Services, 651 Gateway Blvd., S. San Francisco, representative, was available for questions. CLOSED PUBLIC HEARING MOTION SECONDED AND PASSED: Motion by Commissioner Vita and seconded by Commissioner Clow to recommend approval to the City Council for a Conditional Use Permit 4W renewal for an existing, previously approved wireless communications facility for a five year period. AYES: Chairman Wong, Commissioners Cottrell, Vita, Gottlieb & Clow NOES: None This item will be scheduled for a City Council public hearing. 3.3 TOWN OF LOS ALTOS HILLS/NEXTEL, 28535 Matadero Creek Lane (179- 01 -CUP -ND); A request for a Conditional Use Permit for the installation of telecommunication equipment (one 45 foot high pole antenna, disguised as a tree, and equipment shelter) on an existing water tank site; and Negative Declaration. This item was introduced by Mr. Weintraub noting a revision to the height of the pole and the size of the equipment box. Letters were received from Mr. & Mrs. Lefkowits, Mr. & Mrs. Chang, Mr. & Mrs. Tyabji, and Mr. & Mrs. Oronsky voicing concerns with the proposal, and a report by Hammett & Edison, Inc. regarding prevailing exposure standards. OPENED PUBLIC HEARING Shawna Wilson, 1255 Treat Blvd, Walnut Creek, Nextel Communications representative, discussed alternate sites considered and reasons for being non -compatible. She addressed the concerns raised by the neighbors (no benefit to the neighbors, unsightly structure, long term health risks due to its radioactive waves, impact on broadband connection, adverse impact on the aesthetics of the neighborhood and the market value). The Vee pole is not to look like a tree but Planning Commission Minutes Approved 1/10/02 December 13, 2001 Page 3 to blend in with minimal visual impact. There is no substantial data to indicate any long term health issues with the facility and there should be no interference with broadband connections. The proposed site is designed to fill a gap in service. She felt the tree/pole design was the best solution. They plan to landscape the area also. It was suggested to have several poles rather than one tall one, however this would not provide the coverage needed. - Willy Chiu, 28530 Matadero Creek Lane, was representing the seven neighbors/lots (28540, 28525, 28520, 28515, 28505 and 28600) around the proposed site, noting opposition by all. The only other property owner was not available to respond due to being out of town. The objections were as follows: aesthetics, multiple carrier serving area; environmental (drainage problems); and health concerns. There are seven lots surrounding this site; six oppose the project. Mrs. Nagpal, 28555 Matadero Creek Lane, felt wireless communication facilities should not go into residential areas. She voiced opposition stating there should not be any commercial activity in a neighborhood. Rick Ellinger, 28520 Matadero Creek Lane, also voiced concerns with the project. Though they do not state the purpose, other than communications, he felt the site would emit microwave radiation in the directions toward I-280, new Sand Hill Road. This pattern would put the sector radiation directly and continuously through his home. This would be a clear and present hazard. He illustrated there was no need for emergency cell phones. Other than the water company, he ( was not aware that the town has tolerated construction of any commercial activity in town. Beside the hazard situation (homes directly in an intense portion of the beam radiation path), and the lack of need, he was opposed to the construction on more traditional lines as he was opposed to any above ground construction on the underground water tank property. The Utilities and Information Networks Committee is working diligently to finding a way to underground all the utilities as well as bringing higher speed Internet and video access to the residents. Putting more stuff up in the air that blocks views is not a good suggestion. No one knows the long term effects and the equipment size is that of a secondary unit. He asked that the proposal be denied without prejudice for all the previously mentioned reasons. Mr. Chan, 28600 Matadero Creek Lane, voiced opposition. Dot Schreiner, 14301 Saddle Mountain Drive, stated the site is very visible and that the Matadero Creek subdivision was a very special subdivision creating open space. The utility buildings will clutter the area. Charlie Ellinger, 28250 Matadero Creek Lane, voiced concerns regarding any benefit to the neighbors on Matadero Creek, drainage issue/concerns, possible lights on the structure, and access. Sandy Humphries, Environmental Design Committee, felt there was a visual impact. The Committee felt the poles that are made into trees just look like fake trees. Usually the best solution is using a monopole. The residents all oppose this location. This is a special area and the long term health risks are not known. Planning Commission Minutes Approved 1/10/02 December 13, 2001 Page 4 Shawna Wilson responded to comments regarding lighting of the facility, commercial use in residential area, the accuracy of the mock-up, height reduction issues, and the actual size of the equipment shelter. Kristen Jacobson, legal representative for Nextel, reiterated points made by Ms. Wilson. She referred to the Telecommunications Act of 1996. She further commented on no other sites available, flexibility regarding the tree/pole issue, perhaps propose a flood light pole which is slimmer, and providing landscape screening. She felt the drainage could be worked out with the building department. They are looking for coverage in this area. Bill Hammett, Consulting Engineer for Nextel, addressed health issues, radio frequency and radiation. He provided a statement regarding prevailing exposure standards, general facility requirements, computer modeling method, site and facility description, study results, no recommended mitigation measures, and conclusion of the report. CLOSED PUBLIC HEARING Discussion ensued. Commissioner Cottrell felt the issue of construction within a neighborhood was a concern. Every neighbor objects. He suggested denying the project or continuing it to see if there were any alternates were the neighborhood could come to an agreement with the applicant. He did not accept that this is the only site in Town where you can cover a relatively small area like Page Mill Road. He was concerned that if this site was approved, how long would it be before all the other carriers would request the same much like Page Mill Road and I-280. Commissioner Clow felt this was a poor justification for a cellular site in town and the strongest objection for approval. He recommended denial. Commissioner Gottlieb noted that most sites are along freeways, not residential. This will be visible from the Saddle Mountain Road area as well as to the residents looking down upon the Matadem Creek subdivision. There is only 90 feet from one resident. She felt the reasons for denial are due to being in a residential area. If denied without prejudice, Nextel may be able to return with a new application and site. Commissioner Vitu was concerned because of all the neighborhood opposition and this is in a very special residential area. She also wondered why there have not been any other carriers that needed to locate in this area. The Town does want to provide cellular coverage and provide competition among carriers but she wondered if they could find another site that might achieve their objective. She suggested continuance to either make this more aesthetically pleasing or to look for alternate locations. Chairman Wong stated that they cannot stop technology from coming into the town. However, in this case, as he agreed with the other Commissioners, that the applicant needs to work more with the neighbors for an acceptable solution. The Planning Director noted the steepness of the site, given the size of the site and the steepness of the site, the Commission could reason that the water tank constitutes development area and in fact exceeds the development area for this lot so no additional structures would be permissible on this particular site. Commissioner Gottlieb felt the siting for the facility is inappropriate in an interior residential area being only 90 feet from the home and site. V Planning Commission Minutes Approved 1/10/02 December 13, 2001 Page 5 40 MOTION SECONDED AND PASSED: Motion by Commissioner Clow and seconded by Commissioner Gottlieb to recommend to the City Council denial for a Conditional Use Permit for the installation of telecommunication equipment (one 45 foot high pole antenna, disguised as a tree, and equipment shelter) on an existing water tank site; and Negative Declaration , Nextel, 28535 Matadero Creek Lane Findings: (1) The water tank is considered an impervious surface and the application would exceed the development area allowed for the site. (2) The siting in relation to aesthetics is inappropriate. (3) Extraordinary neighborhood opposition. AYES: Chairman Wong, Commissioners Vita, Cottrell, Gottlieb & Clow NOES: None This item will be scheduled for a City Council agenda. Brief break at 8:40 p.m. 3.4 FOOTHILL COLLEGE/NEXTEL, 12345 El Monte Road (227 -01 -CUP); A request for a Conditional Use Permit for the installation of telecommunication equipment (four 4 -foot high antennas) on an existing building. Staff introduced this item noting that Nextel Communications is requesting a renewal of the use permit as well as approval for four (4) additional antennas. `r OPENED PUBLIC HEARING Richard Tan, 1255 Treat Blvd., Walnut Creek, Nextel representative, noted this was a non- residential site. He has read the conditions of approval and was available for questions. CLOSED PUBLIC HEARING MOTION SECONDED AND PASSED: Motion by Commissioner Clow and seconded by Commissioner Cottrell to recommend to the City Council approval for the request for a renewal of a Conditional Use Permit and the installation of telecommunication equipment (four 4 -foot high antennas) on an existing building. AYES: Chairman Wong, Commissioners Cottrell, Gottlieb, Clow & Vita NOES: None 3.5 LANDS OF WURTZ, 12950 Robleda Road (204 -01 -TM -ND -GD); A request for a recommendation of approval for a two lot subdivision of 12.26 acres, and proposed Mitigated Negative Declaration. Bob Graham, Planning Consultant, introduced this item by reviewing the staff report. A correction was made to the Lot Unit Factor for Parcel 1 from 2.08 to 1.94. OPENED PUBLIC HEARING Planning Commission Minutes Approved 1/10/02 December 13, 2001 Page 6 k1I Susan Roberts, Giuliani & Kull, 4880 Stevens Creek Blvd., San Jose, engineering representative, stated the site is currently undergoing a remodel and the Environmental Design Committee's comment regarding glare should not be a problem. She questioned condition #4 and asked that conditions 5 and 6 be deleted as the applicants and neighbors do not want any pathways over the property due to the steep terrain and privacy issues. She further requested changes to the wording for conditions 9 & 10 (permit process for new residence rather than as a part of the subdivision). There is a note on Parcel 2, "no further subdivision". Although they have no intention of a further subdivision of Parcel 2, it was possible. It was suggested that the note be deleted. Commissioner Gottlieb suggested a maintenance agreement regarding the driveway for the two Parcels. Ken Olcott, 12950 Brendal Way, was generally in favor of the subdivision without the pathway (privacy issues). A letter from Mrs. Olcott stated the recommended pathway imposes a harsh effect on both security and privacy for the neighboring properties. There is a pathway linking Robleda to O'Keefe already exists via Brendel Drive and Vista Serena. A second connection that violates and intrudes on people's backyards, privacy and security is clearly not warranted. Charles Bieber, 12800 W. Sunset Drive, stated that the neighbors on West Sunset Drive are opposed to the proposed pathway as stated in his letter of December 7, 2001. He felt West 4 Sunset Drive to be a dangerous one lane road on which no easement or usable terrain is available form off-road pathway. Any easement which allows for creation of a pathway joining Robleda Road or La Rena Lane to W. Sunset Drive would lead to an increase in foot traffic on the road surface such that the possibility of an accident between pedestrians and vehicular traffic would be greatly enhanced. Doug Ahrens, 12791 W. Sunset Drive, agreed with Dr. Bieber's concerns. The proposed conservation easement adjacent to his driveway is intended for use as a connector path linking W. Sunset and La Rena. The proposed area is entirely surrounded by private property with no public road access. To connect the proposed easement with the existing pathway on La Rena Lane would require crossing his land. His property is posted as private and it is his intent that it remain so. If a connector path is created on the Wurtz property, the city will effectively be encouraging trespassing on his private property. He felt the pathway would encourage trespassing. A request for a pathway on his property arose at the time of their 1997 remodel but was ultimately not required. He has maxed the MDA/MFA and did not foresee an opportunity for the city to gain an easement to his property in the future. He concluded by discussing privacy as the proposed pathway would go within five feet of his pool and guest house. The pathway would also provide a direct line of site into the master bathroom. Bob Stutz, Pathway Committee, had walked the property well below the house site and felt the pathway was not impossible to build. He did not feel pathways constitute a threat to safety but increase safety. He further discussed fire protection and access. �w Commissioner Gottlieb stated that the residents on Le Rena Lane and Sunset Drive are land locked. She discussed an emergency access road in case of fire. 4 Planning Commission Minutes Approved 1/10/02 December 13, 2001 Page 7 Sandy Humphries, Environmental Design Committee, discussed the conservation easement, in particular, on Parcel I which should go around the oak trees as well as steep slopes. There are a circle of oak trees on Parcel 2 which should also be protected (conservation circle). She asked for additional protection from oak tree removal with a conservation easement. CLOSES PUBLIC HEARING Discussion ensued regarding protecting the environment. It did appear that the applicants are trying to save oak trees. There is an ordinance that protects heritage oaks. Commissioner Clow supports the subdivision and did not feel additional conservation easements were needed to protect the oak trees beyond the current heritage oak tree ordinance. He does not support the pathway request due to oppositions noted by the neighbors. Commissioner Cottrell agreed. He felt the statement regarding "no further subdivision" on Parcel 2 should be removed from the map. Staff noted the applicants would need to provide an exhibit of potential building sites, as required, if the wording is to be removed. Commissioner Cottrell continued stating he also agreed to delete the request for an off-road pathway. Commissioner Vim also concurred. She did not support the off-road path or further conservation easements. Commissioner Gottlieb discussed a potential utility easement over Parcel 1 in case Parcel 2 was subdivided. She questioned the 35 foot egress/ingress which was answered by the Planning Consultant. Commissioner Gottlieb would like an added condition to prevent the removal of trees prior to Site Development. She noted the statement in condition #7 that "the conservation easements to the town generally shown on the Tentative Map, subject to the approval of the Planning Director" which is usually referenced by what is shown on the map. She would like this changed. She would also like additional wording stating that the applicant shall grant an ingress and egress easement to Parcel 2 as part of the Final Map to be approved by the Town Engineer. There also needs to be a maintenance agreement regarding the roadway, maintenance of the driveway, drainage system and landscaping of the private road easement on Parcel 1. She also supports the pathway between La Rena Lane and Sunset Drive, mainly for an emergency access in case of fire. Also, if the pathway is not required, an in -lieu fee should be required. Chairman Wong felt the project was well done. He noted the opposition from neighbors regarding the pathway. MOTION SECONDED AND PASSED: Motion by Commissioner Clow and seconded by Commissioner Cottrell to recommend to the City Council approval for a two lot subdivision of 12.26 acres, and proposed Mitigated Negative Declaration, Lands of Wurtz, 12950 Robleda Road, with the following additions/changes to the conditions of approval: delete conditions 4, 5, & 6 which refer to the pathway; change to condition #7: "The applicant shall grant Conservation Easements to the Town of Los Altos Hills generally as shown on the Tentative Map. A plat and legal description of the easements shall be prepared for each lot and shall be recorded as a separate document concurrently with the map, and the easement descriptions shall be prepared separately and recorded at the same time as the Final Map to the satisfaction of the Town Engineer"; change to condition #9: to at the time of Site Development review."; condition #10, "The site drainage shall be designed as surface flow wherever possible to avoid concentration of the runoff. A drainage Swale shall be designed at Planning Commission Minutes Approved 1/10/02 December 13, 2001 Page g the time of Site Development review above the proposed building pad on Parcel 1 as recommended by the applicant's geotechnical consultant."; add to #22, that no trees shall be removed prior to site development plan review except as otherwise authorized by the Planning Department and the Town Municipal Code. New conditions: (1) Parcel 1, The applicant shall grant an ingress and egress easement to parcel 2 as part of the final Map to be approved by the town Engineer. (2) A maintenance agreement shall be prepared for the owners of parcels 1 & 2 defining the joint responsibilities of maintenance of the driveway, drainage system and landscaping of the private road easement on parcel 1. The agreement shall be subject to the review and approval of the City Engineer and a final copy shall be submitted to the Town prior to recording the final map. It was noted that no off road pathways were necessary for this subdivision and that the subdivision would be subject only to paying the Town's pathway in -lieu fee. This was due to neighbors in attendance opposing the off road pathway, the applicant citing privacy concerns, steep terrain in the area of the proposed pathway and an alternate route on Brendel Drive. The wording on the plan, Parcel 2, "NO FURTHER SUBDIVISION" is the applicant's option and not a requirement. If the wording is removed, the applicant shall provide an exhibit of a potential subdivision, including building circles. AYES: Chairman Wong, Commissioners Vita, Clow & Cottrell NOES: Commissioner Gottlieb (believed there should be a pathway easement if only for emergency purposes between La Rena Lane and West Sunset Drive) This item will be scheduled for a City Council public hearing. 3.6 LANDS OF HARPOOTLIAN & PRICE, 26435 Anacapa Drive (151-01-ZP-SD- VAR); A request for a Site Development Permit for a 476 square foot garage (maximum height 14 feet) and a lap pool; and a variance to locate the garage and pool within front and side yard setbacks. Staff introduced this item by reviewing the recommendation for denial. The Planning Director clarified in reviewing the application, it was not known until last week that there was an existing garage. When checking the site plan and worksheet, there was no indication of there being an existing garage. Because there was an existing garage, staff was unable to make the first variance finding. Staff provided the history of some past variances in close proximity to this site. To date, there has not been any neighborhood opposition to this application. Commissioner Gottlieb questioned how the 40 foot and 30 foot setbacks were established. OPENED PUBLIC HEARING Duffy Price, 26435 Anacapa Drive, applicant, was surprised by the staffs recommendation for denial. She provided additional information to justify their request for a variance. Since 1999, `, they have worked with three separate planners due to turnover. They felt they had explained in detail what their proposal involved. She provided rationale for the garage variance indicating the Planning Commission Minutes Approved 1/10/02 December 13, 2001 Page 9 need to expand the living area of their two bedroom house in order to accommodate elder cue for her mother. The existing attached two -car garage will be used for the living area expansion. She provided the names and addresses of two other residents who requested and were granted a variance in years past. She did not feel the suggestion to locate the expanded living area to a second story would be acceptable as it would increase the bulk of the residence and be incompatible with the architectural design. It would also require additional costly infrastructure to support loads of a second story. A second story would not meet the needs for handicapped elder care and would obstruct view corridors for neighbors. She further provided rationale for the lap pool variance, reducing the side yard setback from 30 feet to 11 feet, and alternatives as suggested by staff. She stated that the proposed pool could be moved an additional 1-2 feet from the side yard setback. John Harpootlian, 26435 Anacapa Drive, applicant, noted that the proposed area for the new garage is an existing parking pad. He provided a history of the project and feedback from staff along with the recommendation for denial. He felt the remaining gravel drive could be reduced in width to a 4 -foot gravel path which is not counted as development area, and the proposed gravel surfaces around the pool and parking pad be replaced by impervious surfaces. This would reduce the total development area by 464 square feet. He reiterated statements made in a prepared statement provided to the Commission regarding Staff report, Attachment 1, #8 and Attachment 3a and 3b. Duffy Price, 26435 Anacapa Drive, summarized eight (8) points which addressed the conditions that are relevant to their variance request. CLOSED PUBLIC HEARING Commissioner Gottlieb requested the two variances be reviewed separately. Commissioner Gottlieb asked if the applicants considered moving the garage closer to the house to reduce the encroachment into the setback (less non -conforming). Mr. Harpootlian responded yes. Commissioner Vitu understood the reasons for the request and there is no neighbor opposition. However, she could not support the variance for the lap pool. She suggested switching the setbacks (40 feet on lower property and 30 feet on the upper property) to minimize the encroachment. Commissioner Cottrell felt this was a difficult lot. He agreed with the suggestion to move the garage closer to the house, and using the existing garage for the in-law quarters understandable. If the lap pool was moved at least a foot closer to the house, he could support the variance. Commissioner Clow felt it was hard to justify the need for the garage and/or the lap pool. However, there is no neighbor opposition. The natural screening is very good. Chairman Wong stated they must have specific, appropriate, and relevant findings to grant a variance. They need to adhere to the ordinances. Commissioner Gottlieb felt there was a difference between living area and amenities. Further discussion ensued. v Planning Commission Minutes Approved I/10/02 December 13, 2001 Page 10 MOTION SECONDED AND PASSED: Motion by Commissioner Gottlieb and seconded by Commissioner Cottrell to approve the request for a Site Development Permit for a new garage and variance to allow the garage to encroach into setback subject to moving the garage at least three feet closer to the existing residence to minimize the setback encroachment. Lands of Harpootlian and Price, 26435 Anacapa Drive. The applicants variance findings for the proposed placement of the garage in the setback were accepted. The fourth parking space is optional. AYES: Chairman Wong, Commissioners Gottlieb, Vitu, Clow & Cottrell NOES: None This approval is subject to a 22 day appeal period. MOTION FAILED DUE TO LACK OF SECOND: Motion by Commissioner Cottrell to approve the request for a Site Development Permit for a lap pool and variance to allow the lap pool to encroach into setback subject to moving it one foot closer to the existing residence to minimize the setback encroachment. Findings: exceptional piece of property; well shielded; no neighbor opposition; one area left on the property were the pool could be built. MOTION SECONDED AND PASSED: Motion by Commissioner Vitu and seconded by Commissioner Clow to deny the request for a variance to allow a lap pool encroachment into the setback, Lands of Harpootlian and Price, 26435 Anacapa Drive. Findings: It was determined that pools are amenities, not necessarily appropriate for all lots in a hillside community when zoning standards cannot be met. AYES: Chairman Wong, Commissioners Clow, Gottlieb, Vito & Clow NOES: Commissioner Cottrell This denial is subject to a 22 day appeal period. 3.7 LANDS OF PERRELL, 26411 Eshner Court and 26300 Silent Hills Lane (130- 01 -LLA); A request for a lot line adjustment and a summary vacation of a pathway easement and a sanitary sewer easement. Staff introduced this item by noting concurrent with the lot line adjustment, the applicant proposes to vacate a 15 foot public pedestrian/equestrian off-road pathway easement and a 15 foot sanitary sewer easement. Both easements are currently located on the shared boundary line of existing lots A and B, and run through the prime building site of proposed Lot B which violates Town codes. The Pathway Committee has recommended that a replacement easement be granted to the Town running along the property line as indicated on the site plans (private rather than public for use by immediate property owners). To vacate the public pathway and not replace it with another existing pathway would require an amendment to the Pathway Element of the General Plan. The Planning Director clarified that the Commission can make that decision or decide that there is an existing pathway connector between Silent Hills Lane and Eshner Court which may satisfy the neighborhood connector requirements of the General Plan. If they want to kw keep the existing pathway where it is, it necessitates not approving the lot line adjustment because it would not be in complete compliance with Town codes (pathway running through the Planning Commission Minutes Approved 1/10/02 December 13, 2001 Page 11 `r middle of the property). Commissioner Gottlieb expressed concern regarding the lot line adjustment as it reduces Lot A which may not achieve the MDA/MFA numbers. This is creating a bad lot and creating a huge lot. Also, this pathway has been a very old route. OPENED PUBLIC HEARING Charlie Perrell, 1405 Fairway Drive, Los Altos, applicant, clarified that they are not proposing site development or location of the house on either lot at this time. The lot line adjustment meets Town requirements. The only exception to the code found was that the 160 building circle would overlay the pathway and sewer easement. He did not believe there was an issue regarding the pathway. He asked the Commissioner to only review the proposed lot line adjustment on its own merit with no conditions to be imposed as long as they meet all the Town codes which they do. He felt both lots will be very attractive. They are not merging the lots but plan to build one home on the two lots. They are very supportive of the oak trees on the site. They agreed with the recommendation of the planning staff regarding the sanitary sewer easement. A final issue is their plan to pursue a summary vacation procedure of the pathway that goes through the middle of the property (previously discussed). Reasons for vacating: pathway has never been installed or used. The pathway results into a dead end. The pathway would be a security and privacy issue. They plan in their summary vacation of the pathway going up the center of the property to not vacate it in entirety. They have discussed this with the planning staff. The notion would be to make sure that the pathway that goes from Eshner Court to Silent Hills Lane can connect to Silent Hills which needs a piece of the pathway to be vacated. So that piece would not be vacated. A large portion of the land is in a conservation easements and they have a special 50 foot building setback to provide the Cleary's with privacy. He currently has the legal description and plat for the pathway removal. Michael Snieder, 826 Parma Way, attorney for applicants, further discussed the lot line adjustment which does not conflict with any Town code or ordinances. Since there is a question, they will determine whether the pathway is private or public. Tony Spohr, 27340 Julietta Lane, had previously provided a letter stating concerns regarding the request for a lot line adjustment and a summary vacation of a pathway easement and a sanitary sewer easement involving the Lands of Perrell. He referred to the Master Path which indicates pathway connections between Altamont Road and Julietta Lane. The LeFevre subdivision, which created the two lots comprising the Lands of Perrell, incorporates the pathway under consideration in accordance with the requirements of the master plan and was settled on after much debate and careful consideration of neighbors, the Planning Commission and Pathways Committee. A summary vacation of the pathway easement should be out of the question. A rerouting of the pathway easement also should not be permitted. The summary vacation of the sanitary easement would also have implications to a number of parties including the immediate neighbors and others on the system. He felt a study was needed. He also felt the lot line adjustment would significantly increase the MDA/MFA available for Lot B, creating an opportunity for a home to be built totally out of proportion to the homes and ambience of the existing neighborhood. He requested disapproval of the request for a lot line adjustment. Planning Commission Minutes Approved 1/10/02 December 13, 2001 Page 12 w Tom LeFevre, 14850 Manuella Road, also owns property across from the Perrell lot. He was the subdivider of this property a few yews ago. His research into the pathway from Julietta Lane to the Eshner Court property is that it was a private easement, not a public easement. He suggested further research by the Town. Secondly, regarding the ability to fit a house in the Parcel A, before he sold the lot he had an architect from Mountain View review the site. The architect was familiar with Town procedures, policies, setbacks, and had come up with three or four different variations using the entire MFA (5,637 square feet) without requiring any variances. Regarding the pathway, he found it to be an intrusive pathway (back yard pathway) and he would like to see it eliminated. Bob Stutz, Pathways Committee, supports the recommendations of the Committee. He does not support coming across a third or a portion of their lot even though the grade would be far superior and the cost would be far less. He has never heard of a private pathway. Leo Quilici, 27350 Julietta Lane, discussed concerns with the lot line adjustment and does not want the pathway re-routed from were it currently is which would run across the back side of his property. Consideration should be given to house placement and whether it is intrusive on views from the neighboring properties. Gary Cleary, 26410 Silent Hills Lane, voiced concerns regarding bay views. He would like to see the pathway along his property remain. He was concerned with the new home looking down onto his property. Hopefully, this could be worked out at the time of site development. Charlie Perrell thanked everyone for their comments. He felt the Cleary's would benefit as there will only be one home and away from them. He will try to make the home community friendly. CLOSED PUBLIC HEARING Commissioner Clow recommended they proceed with the lot line adjustment and let the City Council deal with the pathway easement issue. Commissioner Cottrell agreed. They were hearing the lot adjustment only although he felt the pathway could be moved up adjacent to the new lot line. Commissioner Vitu supported the lot line adjustment and she could make the findings that the pathway from Eshner Court to Silent Hills Lane satisfies the connector requirements otherwise the applicant has pathways on three sides. Commissioner Gottlieb felt this should be reviewed by the City Attorney before voting due to the issues brought up. She thought a pathway could run through the middle of the property. She supported the pathway and she will not vote for the lot line adjustment. She felt the applicant should have the pathway moved and dedicated in another area before recommended approval of the lot line adjustment. MOTION SECONDED AND PASSED: Motion by Commissioner Clow and seconded by Commissioner Cottrell to recommend to the City Council approval of the lot line adjustment, Lands of Perrell, 26411 Eshner Court and 26300 Silent Hills Lane, without conditions. ( AYES: Chairman Wong, Commissioners Vito, Clow & Cottrell V NOES: Commissioner Gottlieb Planning Commission Minutes Approved 1/10/02 December 13, 2001 Page 13 fir' This item will appear on the City Council agenda. Brief break at 11:20 p.m. 3.8 LANDS OF METRO PCS, 27400 Purissima Road (230 -01 -SD -CUP); A request for a Site Development Permit and Conditional Use Permit for the co -location of two (2) panel antennas on an existing 70 foot pole, and 10 equipment cabinets within an existing telecommunication facility. Continued at the request of the applicant. This item will be re -noticed for public hearing. 3.9 PROPOSED DRAFT ORDINANCES AMENDING ZONING CODE WITH REGARD TO REQUIRED COVERED PARKING FOR NEW RESIDENTIAL CONSTRUCTION (SECTION 10-1.601 OF THE ZONING CODE) AND WITH REGARD TO NEW CARPORT CONSTRUCTION (SECTION 10-1.233 OF THE ZONING CODE). Staff reviewed the report. Commissioner Gottlieb questioned the use of "COVERED" rather then "GARAGE" or 'ENCLOSED". Commissioner Clow questioned the wording "each dwelling". Staff clarified the statement indicating it meant new residence or major additions (new construction). This would be based on additional floor area. Under Section 10-1.601 Residential Uses, and "for new residences, including a minimum of two (2) covered puking spaces." OPENED PUBLIC HEARING Torin Knorr, 253 S. B Street, San Mateo, CA 94401, architect, stated that there is an application that is being reviewed with a two car covered garage and a two car carport. Since the carport floor area was not a part of the original calculations, he requested this project be exempt from the new ordinance change. The project was submitted for review on 10/19/01 and has already requested review comments. He felt it would be unfair to the applicants as they have been in the process under the current ordinances for some time. He further stated that they have met with the neighbors who are in support of the project. Lisa Peterson & Alan Baldwin, owners of the property at 10310 Magdalena Road, are in currently in the planning review and, as written, they would subject to this ordinance which might be effective as soon as January 17, 2002. The ordinance wording does not take into consideration applications that have already been submitted or projects already designed under the current ordinances and guidelines which for them has been a 12 month process. She felt the date of application was more important than the date of construction. Torin Knot felt they could submit the requested changes requested by the Engineering Department by tomorrow, if necessary. 44., The Planning Director did not feel there would be a problem as the ordinance would not be in effect until Much which would give this applicant ample time to go through the process. V Planning Commission Minutes December 13, 2001 Page 14 CLOSED PUBLIC HEARING Approved 1/10/02 MOTION SECONDED AND PASSED: Motion by Commissioner Clow and seconded by Commissioner Vitu to recommend to the City Council approval proposed draft ordinances amending zoning code with regard to required covered parking for new residential construction (section 10-1.601 of the zoning code) and with regard to new carport construction (section 10- 1.233 of the zoning code) with the recommended changes. AYES: Chairman Wong, Commissioners Vitu, Clow & Cottrell NOES: Commissioner Gottlieb (preferred the word change from "COVERED" TO "ENCLOSED") 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 6.1 Planning Commission Representative for November 15", Commissioner Vitu, reported on the following: update on Mayor's goals and objectives; discussion of sanitary sewer capacity; Municipal Code and Policy Review Committee; discussion of conservation easement policy; request for a conditional use permit renewal for an existing/previously approved wireless communications facility comprised of panel antennas on the Foothill College gym, Lands of Foothill College/Sprint PCS, 12345 El Monte Road; and request for an easement over Edith Park (Town of Los Altos Hills) for environmental mitigation purposes, Lands of Santa Clara Valley Water District, S.E. corner of Fremont Road and W. Edith Avenue. 6.2 Planning Commission Representative for December 6s', Commissioner Clow, reported on the joint study session with the Planning Commission and City Council on plan reading. 6.3 Planning Commission Representative for December 20ih — cancelled APPROVAL OF MINUTES 7.1 Approval of the November 8, 2001 minutes PASSED BY CONSENSUS: To approve the November 8, 2001 minutes. Planning Commission Minutes Approved 1/10/02 December 13, 2001 Page 15 `0 8. REPORT FROM THE FAST TRACK MEETING -NOVEMBER 13, 20 & DECEMBER 11 2001 8.1 LANDS OF SHIH, 27925 Roble Blanco (150-01-ZP-SD-GD); A request for a Site Development Permit for a pool house, pool and spa. Approved with conditions. 8.2 LANDS OF NAYYERHABIBI, 12113 Oak Park Circle (161-01-ZP-SD); A request for a Site Development Permit for a pool, spa, hardscape and landscape screening. Approved with conditions. 8.3 LANDS OF KACHRU & DHAR, 13620 Roble Alto Court (171-01-ZP-SD-GD); A request for a Site Development Permit for an addition. Approved with conditions. 8.4 LANDS OF PATEL, 12690 Dianne Drive (114-0 1 -ZP-SD-GD); A request for a Site Development Permit for a new residence. Approved with conditions. 8.5 LANDS OF WORSTER, 11271 Magdalena Road (62-01-ZP-SD-GD); A request for a Site Development Permit for a new residence and pool. Approved with conditions. 9. REPORT FROM SITE DEVELOPMENT MEETING—NOVEMBER 13 & DECEMBER 11,2001 9.1 LANDS OF MITTELMAN, 12100 Kate Drive (254-01-ZP-SD); A request for a Site Development Permit for a landscape screening plan. Approved with conditions. 9.2 LANDS OF BOWERS, 25518 Hidden Springs Court (194-01-ZP-SD); A request for a Site Development Permit for a swimming pool and spa. Approved with conditions. 10. ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned by consensus at 11:55 p.m. Respectfully submitted, L'dni Smith Planning Secretary Le