Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout09/12/2002Minutes of a Regular Meeting Approved 10/24/02 Town of Los Altos Hills PLANNING COMMISSION Thursday, September 12, 2002, 7:00 p.m. Council Chambers, 26379 Fremont Road cc: Cassettes (3) #09-02 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 Vita, Commissioners Clow, Cottrell, Kerns & Wong Staff: Carl Cahill, Planning Director; Steven Mattas, City Attorney; Bob Graham, Planning Consultant; Deborah Ungo-McCormick, Planning Consultant; Angelica Herrera, Assistant Planner; Debbie Pedro, Assistant Planner; Mintze Cheng, City Engineer; Lam Smith, Planning Secretary 4 2. PRESENTATIONS FROM THE FLOOR -none 3. PUBLIC HEARINGS 3.1 LANDS OF CAMPBELL & LIGETI, 13902 Campo Vista Lane (116-00- ZPSD-GD); Planning Commission review of unauthorized demolition of historic house, consideration of variance modification or revocation and consideration of a request for a Site Development Permit for a 5,700 square foot new single family residence to be attached to a previously approved 13,690 square foot addition (with basement) and remodel (maximum vertical building height 40 feet) (overall height 50 feet measured from highest ridge to basement pad). The proposed new single family residence is intended to replicate the recently demolished 5,700 square foot historic home that was on the property. The Planning Director introduced this item by providing a history of the project and an overview of the "Stop Work" order due to the un -permitted demolition of the main residence. He further discussed the previously granted variance. Condition of approval #6 states that "the existing home shall not be moved, relocated, or demolished without prior site development review and approval by the Planning Commission." The application is for a new single family residence intended to replicate the recently i demolished historic home that was on the property. Planning Commission Minutes September 12, 2002 Page 2 6W OPENED PUBLIC HEARING Approved 10/24/02 Maria Ligeti, 13902 Campo Vista Lane, applicant, stated that the property was never designated as an historical property. She has looked at the Winbigler home for 13 years prior to the purchase of this beautiful landmark. She described their plans to salvage the house, adding wings and creating a basement, restoring the house rather than subdividing the property which took effort, energy and dollars, saving as many trees as possible with their design. She further described how they arrived at this point which involved four separate permits pulled by four different contractors. They are all professional. The demolition of the old house was a simple human mistake. She takes full responsibility noting they disassembled rather than demolish as all the plumbing, fixtures, gutters, railings, etc, are stored in the basement. She noted that they lived in the house for 1 '/z years to study and evaluate and make sure they could salvage the structure and build around it. They did not destroy the land by placing five homes on it. They restored the land and recreated the stmcture. She asked where they should go from here. The proposed house exceeds the required setbacks and she provided illustrations of the finished home. Everything was salvaged that could be salvaged. This structure will last 100 years. She asked to proceed as planned. It was noted that none of the exterior of the structure was kept. Ms. Ligeti continued by noting the structure was moved off of the foundation a year ago to comply with codes and for the retrofitting in the basement. They did suspect the building was in better condition. Their intent was to preserve the house and they have salvaged everything they could of the old house to be re -used. This is a reconstruction disassembly rather than a demolition as they are recreating and preserving the eliminate and characteristic and the architecture integrity of the piece as well as the architectural style and the representation of the structure. Their intent was to preserve and restore something that the community could enjoy; they should not be punished. The following residents spoke in opposition to this application: William Downey, 14330 De Bell; Nancy Kelem, 26323 Esperanza Drive: Stewart Walbran on Miranda Road; Sandy Humphries, 26238 Fremont Road; Jacquelyn Norheim, 27261 Sherlock Road and Cortney Wheatley, 26644 Purissima Road; Dale Peterson, Miranda Avenue; Joe Krackler, Seven Acres; Carol Moyer, Campo Vista Lane; Breene Kerr, 27261 Sherlock Road; Ken Westtery, 13901 Campo Vista Lane; Sue Sullivan, Campo Vista Lane (drainage problem); Jim Abraham, 12831 Viscaino Road (drainage issue); Jolon Wagner, 26786 Robleda Court; Chris Vargas, Templeton Place; Richard Lamparter, 12864 Viscaino Road (forgiveness rather than permission); Mark Brierer, 26359 Esperanza Drive (no one is above the law); Colette Cranston, 27080 Fremont Road; Abigail Ahems, 200 University Avenue; Steve Bristo, 12355 Hilltop Drive; Ray Egan, 12686 Roble Venedo; Scott Vanderlip, 13851 Fremont Pones Lane; Bob Fenwick, 28011 Elena Road; Drew Brenwall, 14520 Miranda Road; Jan Fenwick, 28011 Elena Road (green light or red light for future architects and builders); Beverly Bryant, 27060 Appaloosa Way (what are the possible penalties); Jim Crager, 145 60 Miranda Road; Jim Downey, 4W Newbridge Road; Sandy Humphries (rebuild the water tower which housed owls) Planning Commission Minutes Approved 1024102 September 12, 2002 Page 3 4 Most felt the loss of the old Winbigler landmark which they have passed by for years. They did not feel the applicant's preceded in good faith. All wanted them to follow the rules, upholding the Town's ordinances. Most felt a penalty was in order. This was not a historic restoration. The Town should enforce all rules and height restrictions. They should not reward the applicants for their actions. The owners and contractors should all be held accountable for their actions. A deal was struck whereby preserving the original house, a height variance was granted. The owners have chosen to violate that deal so it is off. Jerry Brenholz, 14649 Manuella Road, described a similar situation with his home regarding trying to rebuild an old house than building a new residence due to damage and termites. He felt the end product would be a quality home. Carol Gottlieb, Summerhill Avenue, was on the original Planning Commission when this project was first approved (she did not vote for project due to three story appearance) noting the current plan under construction is not the plan that was originally approved. This project violates the height ordinance. CLOSED PUBLIC HEARING Chairman Vita noted that the house was not preserved under any historic ordinances even though it is a historic home. When the applicants came in and wanted to preserve the it home, she was pleased as she thought they could have tom it down or subdivided the property. The real question for her was if the applicants came in and asked for the removal of the house, would they have allowed them a height variance. The original variance given was predicated on the preservation of the historic home. The historic home was demolished without a permit. She cannot make findings for approval of the new variance. She recommended that the applicants return with a site development application that meets the Town's building rules. Commissioner Cottrell stated he was the chairman of the Planning Commission when the original application was approved. This is not a historic site but has great historic value to the Town. The original application with a variance was approved on the basis that the original house was going to be preserved and the overall appearance would have the same look and feel. Now the old house is going so it is no longer a historical site. It now needs to be reviewed like any other application for any other house in Town and if the applicant's were asking for a 40 foot variance today, it would not be granted on a new house. You cannot rebuild a historical site. He did not feel asbestos and termites should be a surprise to any Californian considering the age of the house. He suggested three steps: (1) negate the variance; (2) impose the maximum fine possible; (3) direct the Planning Director to have a complete plan view or ask the applicants for a total resubmission of a new plan. `7 Planning Commission Minutes Approved 10/24/02 September 12, 2002 Page 4 Commissioner Wong agreed. The main issue here is whether it will be a historic preservation or a new building with a new permit and design review. He would like something to be done so the applicants could maintain a good relationship with the Town and residents. He agreed with the three points made by Commissioner Cottrell adding either they should rebuild the house or some type of structure to compensate the community for the loss of the historic site. Commissioner Kerns expressed shock that the house was demolished. The house has been a landmark in Town for years. He had visited the site, speaking to the owners and architect. They felt they were building a replica of the house and explained why they felt justified in doing so. He was told by the applicant they knew about the termites over a year ago. The original intent was to keep the original house, not to build a replica. The height variance was only granted if the original structure was kept. This no longer applies. Parts of a whole do not make a structure. This is not a true restoration. He cannot support the variances applied for in this application. He agreed with the Commissioner's previous comments. The demolishing of the Winbigler house was a blatant betrayal of the community. He would like to see the original house rebuilt exactly as it was on another part of the property, not on the high part, although the Commission could not impose this requirement. The main residence needs to adhere to Town requirements regarding height. He did not feel the applicant's alternate design meets Town requirements. He also felt that the basement which daylights on both sides does not meet the basement definition. Therefore when you measure height of 32 feet, it is measured from the bottom pad of the garage to the top peak of the house. The drawing indicates a height more like 42 feet. This house is highly visible. The ordinances cu=tly indicate that a highly visible house could be restricted to a one story. They could impose this restriction which would mean the entire height would be reduced to the 25 foot range. He agreed to impose a fine although he did not feel the amount was adequate. He would instruct staff to review the penalty fees and how they compare to other communities returning with recommendations. He felt the fine should be 100 times rather than just 10 times. He could not support this application. Commissioner Clow agreed with the previous comments. The design approved two years ago requiring a variance was based on the Winbigler house which has been demolished intentionally without Town approval. The variance granted no longer exists. There was no choice but to deny the application and impose the maximum fines allowed. MOTION SECONDED, AMENDED AND PASSED: Motion by Commissioner Cottrell and seconded by Commissioner Wong to deny the request of a variance modification, Lands of Campbell & Ligeti, 13902 Campo Vista Lane. The variance originally granted shall be negated with the maximum penalty be imposed. Staff shall review the plans for any further violations and a new plan be submitted for consideration by the Planning Commission. Staff shall review the existing construction once the new plan is in place to make sure that any variance from the new plan that conforms Town code (including grading policy and basement height) is in conformance to Town codes. Staff shall review the inspections of this site and report back to the Commission. Planning Commission Minutes Approved 10/24/02 September 12, 2002 Page 5 4 AYES: Chairman Vitu, Commissioners Clow, Kerns, Cottrell &Wong NOES: None This action is subject to a 22 day appeal period. The City Attorney discussed options regarding violations to code involving a citation (through court action, maximum fine $500) to the responsible parties and a provision to impose a permit fee 10 times the level of the base permit fees. This penalty amount could also be attached to subsequent permits. Staff could report back to the Planning Commission regarding any violations of professional responsibility by any one individual involved. It may be appropriate to refer them to the appropriate licensing boards. Brief break at 8:30 p.m. 3.2 LANDS OF MALEK, Buena Vista Drive (APN 182-29-061) (52 -02 -TM - ND -GD); A request for approval of a three lot subdivision of 9.47 acres, and proposed mitigated Negative Declaration. Commissioner Clow stepped down from the hearing due to the proximity of the project to his residence. Yn Bob Graham, Planning Consultant, introduced this item by providing a history of the application including conservation and pathway easements, fire access, 20 foot roadway, the proposed cul-de-sac, slope stability, and drainage. The applicant provided a slope study which has been reviewed by the Town Geotechnical consultant. Two issues which have been worked on up until this evening, as reflected in the correspondence provided, involve the road and fire safety access, and slope stability as it relates to drainage. The first consideration is identified in the Mitigated Negative Declaration (high fire area) as designated in the Los Altos Hills General Plan. The applicant has shown a 20 foot travel way, and a cul-de-sac that is acceptable to the Fire Department. In addition to those guidelines and standards proposed originally, the Fire Department originally asked for a 20 foot wide paved travel way, now agreeing to a 14 foot width with shoulders meeting their standards. Also noted were letters received from the following: Art Iachenbruch, five neighbors from Red Rock Road and Central Drive, Zsuzsanna Molnar and Frank Dietrich, and Wilson Stuart. The City Engineer is available to address any questions regarding drainage. Mr. Graham referred to corrections to the staff report: page seven, Geotechnical Review, August 2000 2002; page 11, conditions 9 and 10, add reviewed and approved by the Town Geotechnical Consultant; conditions #14 correction as follows: "The septic tank and drainfield systems shall be designed and constructed to the satisfaction of the Santa Clara County Environmental Health Department, upon approval of each lot at the Site Development Permit stage, or bonded for prior to recordation of the Final Map." The Fire Department has provided updated requirements as noted in their 4 letter dated September 5, 2002. Correction to the Initial Study, page three, item 8, Planning Commission Minutes Approved 10/24/02 September 12, 2002 Page 6 4W totaling "5.2" acres. Staff is recommending approval of the three lot subdivision and Mitigated Negative Declaration. OPENED PUBLIC HEARING Moosa Malek, applicant, purchased the property in 1984. Over the years there has been many studies done to get the best usage of the property and access. He has met with his immediate neighbors to accommodate their requirements. Mr. Art Lachenbruch is the most affected neighbor and hopes he was also satisfied. Bill Cinquini, BKF Engineers, project engineer, discussed a letter recently sent to the Commission requesting consideration for a narrowing of the requirement paved portion of the roadway within the subdivision. He referred to the Fire Department requirements as noted in their letter of September 5, 2002. He would like the Commission to consider continuing with that same 14 foot wide paved section through the three lot subdivision with the two three-foot all weather surfaces. They felt a 20 foot wide paved surface to basically serve four lots was excessive. He noted that they have been working with staff regarding drainage. The geotechnical consultant for Mr. Malek has done a series of studies in the areas of the proposed trenches and felt the slope stability was adequate. Pedro Lizaur, 11571 Buena Vista Road, discussed the previous attempts to subdivide the property. He felt there were three main issues that have been resolved a few minutes ago. He further discussed slope stability, which should be reviewed. Another issue is fire access and traffic (Page Mill Road). Impacts on a private road should be reviewed. Review now and in the future. Randy Mercy, Buena Vista Road, discussed the complicated Buena Vista/Page Mill Road area, which will see more traffic with this subdivision. All of this should be looked at carefully. Zsuzsann Molnar, 12541 Zappettini Court, had provided a letter for review. She supports the proposal for an equestrian trail to connect Central Drive to the end of Zappettini Court as an excellent solution to extending the pathways and making them safer and more useable. She expressed concern regarding the ridge top retaining the quiet, natural wooded environment. Currently, lots 1 and 2 are barren at the top where the houses are being proposed. She was concerned with a two story house on a ridge top, asking if anything can be done at this time so the structures will fit into the natural contours of the land. Another concern was lighting, and water runoff from Central Drive. She would like to make sure the Town reviews this carefully to make sure the runoff is taken care of. Julian Wagner, 26786 Robleda Court, discussed the slopes of 30% and understood that on this agenda there is a proposal to delete a conservation easement. She would not want this to happen here. She further discussed drainage, referring to another problem on 4W Burke Road. Planning Commission Minutes Approved 10/24/02 September 12, 2002 Page 7 odlo Peggy Lee Fowler, Buena Vista Drive, requested the road not be expanded to 20 feet in width. The area has a rural setting, which should be preserved. She felt the 20 foot width would be difficult to maintain and she felt there was a safety issue involved. Kent Taylor, 27861 Moody Road, looks at Lot 3 and the roadway. He felt a 14 foot wide roadway was more than adequate. He further discussed the steepness of Lot 3 with a 25 foot difference in elevation from the beginning to the end of the property. Hill Riser, 27640 Red Rock Road, felt the development as presented appears to be well thought out and engineered with regard to the natural restraints this steep terrain imposes. He provided a letter from himself and other neighbors regarding runoff and drainage which should be reviewed by the engineering department. They all feet there will be additional water flow. He asked staff to look deeply at the soils report and their solutions. Mary Taylor, 27861 Moody Road, discussed the impact from Lot 3 and the width of the road. Siting of a house on lot 3 will be very important. Eric Clow, 27660 Central Drive, supported comments by Mr. Riser regarding culverts so Central Drive does not get washed out. He also supports the 14 foot wide roadway. Art Lachenbruch, 11820 Buena Vista Drive, felt this was a very carefully prepared subdivision dealing with issues typical of steep terrain, runoff, grading, landslides and earthquake faults. The slope density formula allows for three very constrained but reasonable lots consistent with existing development in the area. He referred to page 14, "Findings #8". He further discussed the road standards (a.) "provide access roadways with a paved all weather surface, a minimum unobstructed width of 20 feet, vertical clearance of 13 feet 6 inches, and (b) "minimum circulating turning radius of 36 feet outside and 23 feet inside.") He felt the visual impact of the turnaround bulb could be reduced substantially by placing a planting circle with a radius of 23 feet in its center, consistent with part "(b)'. Note that the 36 foot radius required for the bulb is four feet greater (with 25% greater paving area) than the 32 foot standard in our subdivision ordinance. If it were desired to make the circular road 20 feet wide, the planting circle could be reduced to a 16 foot radius, still enough for an effective display of maintenance free native plants. Pedro Lizaur discussed the roadway with multiple widths. He asked the Commission to look at Buena Vista Drive in its entirety. Take time and do the bestjob possible. Art Lachenbruch mentioned that these roads in this area have been under review for a long time. He further discussed previous engineering review and problems serving the residents adequately without too much traffic on the road, and providing fire safety. 4 CLOSED PUBLIC HEARING Planning Commission Minutes Approved 1024/02 September 12, 2002 Page 8 6 Commissioner Kerns felt the applicant has done a very good job with the subdivision, especially Lots 1 and 2 with Lot 3 a little less desirable. He liked Mr. Lachenbruch's suggestion regarding the planting bulb in the cul-de-sac. He also liked the suggesting of a 14 foot wide roadway, maybe even reducing it to 12 feet with 4 foot wide all weather shoulders. He felt there are conditions regarding water problems. Commissioner Wong agreed. There is a need to review new construction heights at the future Site Development Permit time. Commissioner Cottrell also agreed. This is an excellent subdivision plan. He would support a 14 foot width all the way and he liked the idea of a planting bulb. Chairman Vito agreed also. She supports the 14 foot width roadway. MOTION SECONDED, AMENDED AND PASSED: Motion by Commissioner Kerns and seconded by Commissioner Cottrell to recommend to the City Council approval of a three lot subdivision of 9.47 acres, and proposed mitigated Negative Declaration, Lands of Malek, Buena Vista Drive, with the following additions/changes to the conditions of approval and the corrections made by the Planning Consultant: Condition #5, the paved section of the roadway shall be 14 feet wide with two three-foot all weather surfaces; and that there be a 23 foot planting circle in the center of the cul-de-sac bulb, subject to Fire Department approval. AYES: Chairman Vita, Commissioners Wong, Cottrell & Kerns, NOES: None ` ABSTAIN: Commissioner Clow �/ This item will appear on the October 3, 2002 City Council agenda. 3.3 LANDS OF HUANG, 27580 Arastradero Road (203 -00 -TM -ND -GD); A request to delete the approved subdivision condition requiring conservation easements on the six lot subdivision and instead pay the required park land dedication in lieu fees. This item has been continued at the applicant's request to October 10, 2002. 3.4 LANDS OF PERRELL, 26300 Silent Hills Lane (104-02-ZP-SD-GD); A request for a Site Development Permit for a new residence, a secondary dwelling unit, carriage house, and a cabana. Staff (Angelica Herrera) introduced this item noting the deletion of the guesthouse and the wine cave and any related geotechnical issues from the Site Development Permit, which will be reviewed under a separate application. She discussed visibility, height, and the concerns of neighbors regarding the previous oak tree removal. This could be reviewed at the time of the Site Development Permit for landscaping. Commissioner Cottrell disclosed he had met briefly with the applicants. OPENED PUBLIC HEARING Planning Commission Minutes Approved 10/24/02 September 12, 2002 Page 9 Steve Ann, 81 Langton Street, San Francisco, project architect, discussed the complex parcel, and working very closely with staff. They are not asking for any variances, trying to wrap the house around the hill rather than sitting on top of the hill. He provided renderings of the project from different directions. Under consideration is the new residence, carriage house, cabana and pool only. They accept all conditions of approval except #3, asking for the landscape screening plan to be reviewed by the Planning Commission (preferred review by staff) as well as clarification regarding plantings "not exceeding the height of the new residence". Condition #4 was questioned regarding the chain link fence requirement, they are interpreting this to mean it is a metal frame fence with a orange plastic infill which is already in place. Sandy Humphries, Environmental Design Committee, had taken pictures of oak trees that were cut down. She went to the site today and they are planting grape vines. She asked for a continuance, as this was not permitted under the subdivision conditions of approval. Tony Spohr, 27380 Julietta Lane, reiterated comments and letters previously made to the Planning Commission and City Council in December 2001, January 2002, and as recently as June 2002 at the City Council meeting where the pathway easement through the property was summarily vacated. At that meeting the City Council stated they would be careful to be sure his property rights were looked after in this process. This is a five acre site with the main house crammed up on the top of the hill which is only 40+ feet from the lot line that separates his house from this property with a 200 plus feet in the front. Since the lot was two lots previously, there are two large building sites available. He asked that the house be moved down the hill so it is further from his house and does not overwhelm the general surrounding area. He suggested reversing the plan which would lower the profile and provide a view of the bay. A lesser request is for the Commission to grant him a view easement with the conditions of approval with the right to also trim the bushes and trees along the lot line so they are even with the top of his house. This would at least provide that they see over the roof and down to the valley, enjoying the view they have enjoyed for 17 years. Tod Cole, project landscape architect, addressed the landscape screening issues noting the idea is to plant trees which, at their maturity, will not obstruct the Spohr's views. Tom LeFevre, 14850 Manuella Road, voiced support of the project. Gary Cleary, 26410 Silent Hills Lane, provided an overview of his letter indicating three main issues: (1) the requirements left unfinished from the Eshner subdivision; (2) massive walls and reflection and mitigation by means of screening and landscaping; and (3) traffic and equipment noise. He also mentioned the water runoff from the Abode Creek water shed. He is at the bottom of the hill and felt after all of the construction, there will not be any place for the water to go. Trees along Silent Hills Lane were never put in by the developer. Also, the developer did not finish the pathway which he felt was being addressed by Town staff. He was concerned with the fronts of the buildings. If they are not going to build the guest house, he would prefer the cabana in that area so it is Planning Commission Minutes Approved 10/24/02 September 12, 2002 Page 10 4W not jutting out into their view. He provided a rough map noting the areas of concern indicating a row of oak trees would be nice between the pathway and the roadway coming in from another lot. Regarding traffic and construction equipment, he asked that the applicant use the other entry way to bring the larger equipment in. He asked that they not use Silent Hills Lane for parking as there should be ample parking on site. He hoped they use noiseless pumps for the pool and for the air conditioning system. Of course, drainage is an issue. Nobuko Cleary, 26410 Silent Hills Lane, was shocked with the proposal. She felt the property was over developed and intrusive on their side of the property. Mr. Perrell has cut many oak trees without pemlission. He should plant many oak trees especially in front the carriage house and cabana to block it from their view and to help keep rain mnoff from flooding their home. She voiced concern regarding noise and damage caused by Mr. Perrell's workman requesting repair of the damage, now and in the future. She asked that the pathway be left as is. She discussed the back flow valve (should not be moved or disturbed), the LeFevre subdivision conditions, moving of the fence, and the planting of trees which will block their view. Charlie Perrell, Fairway Drive, Los Altos, applicant, noted that they did not cut down 20 oak trees. When they purchased the property, they hired a professional arborist and brought in another professional specializing in oak trees, etc., and a landscape architect who determined the health of the trees only. The only heritage oak tree removed was removed with a permit from the Town. The Environmental Committee person came by and claimed they had cut down many trees which was not accurate. They agreed to just resolve the issue by planting six new oak trees. He would be glad to show anyone what they have done. What they did was for the health of the trees. The design shown on the plans was worked out with the Pathway Committee. They do not plan to run the pathway over the water control valve. He noted that they did plant some vines on the property which had a temporary fence around it with permission from Town Hall. Unfortunately, someone left the gate open and the deer destroyed the vineyard. He noted that the project is on 3'/z acres, not 5 acres. Mr. Spohr's view concerns were taken into account with many changes made to the plans indicating the house is barely visible from the Spohr house with the views preserved. Regarding the Cleary's request for oak trees, he felt their view would be protected with the olive trees. He further stated that they are well beyond the setback and they should not impact the Spohr's. Regarding the reflective materials, he provided samples of the materials for review noting there should not be a reflectivity problem. There was a concern raised regarding the dripline of two oak trees. Mr. Perrell noted the driveway could be moved. Sandy Humphries discussed the heritage oak tress removed (healthy trees) on this site and what she felt was illegal grading for the grape vines. CLOSED PUBLIC HEARING 4 Planning Commission Minutes Approved 10/24/02 September 12, 2002 Page 11 4 Commissioner Kerns felt the applicant had done an excellent job placing the house and supports the application as submitted with the driveway moved to try to get it out of the dripline of the trees. He supports the restoration work being done and hoped they can protect the surrounding trees in the area. Hopefully they will take into account the drainage issues with their plan. The landscaping will be reviewed by the Planning Commission. Commissioner Clow agreed with the siting of the house considering the large oak trees around it. Moving the house farther down the hill would encroach onto some of the oak trees. He felt there was a legitimate concern regarding landscaping and screening and the need for significant oak trees and landscape expense to make up for some of the oak trees that appear to have been removed. He would also like to make sure the drainage does meet the Cleary's concerns. We would not support a view easement/corridor. He voiced support of the application. Commissioner Wong liked the design of the house. He indicated that the landscape screening plan will return for Commission review with a five to one ratio for tree replacement. They should address any drainage onto the Cleary property. Landscaping should not block the Sporh's views. Commissioner Cottrell also liked the plan and felt it was appropriately sited. He would like to see the landscaping on the upper side limited in height so not cut the view of the neighbor above (review landscape plan). Drainage should be addressed. The Planning Director addressed condition #4, and the need for the request. Another issue besides having a certified engineer certifying the location and elevation of the house at the time of framing, it should be at the height that the architect specified or less. Chairman Vitu agreed with previous comments. Two issues needing to be addressed are the drainage so the Cleary's do not have any drainage damage on their property. At the time of landscape review, they will address the replacement of oak trees which have been removed. She supports some type of landscaping with a mature height of no higher than the house. MOTION SECONDED, AMENDED AND PASSED: Motion by Commissioner Wong and seconded by Commissioner Clow to approve the Site Development Permit for a new residence, carriage house, cabana and pool, Lands of Perrell, 26300 Silent Hills Lane, with the recommended conditions of approval with a reminder that the oak trees to be replaced with a strong consideration on the protection of the view of the neighbors (no redwood trees). AYES: Chairman Vita, Commissioners Clow, Cottrell, Kerns &Wong NOES: None This approval is subject to a 22 day appeal period. 3.5 LANDS OF SEIVER, 27869 Saddle Court (47-02-ZP-SD-VAR); A request for a Site Development Permit for a 503 square foot addition (maximum height 30 feet), and a variance to exceed the 27 foot maximum height allowed. Continued to the October 10, 2002 Planning Commission meeting at the request of the applicants. ow Planning Commission Minutes September 12, 2002 Page 12 Brief break at 10:40 p.m. Approved 10/24/02 3.6 LANDS OF ASKARI, 27830 Elena Road (Lot B) (134-02-ZP-SD-GD- VAR); A request for a Site Development Permit for a new residence, and a variance to grade within 10 feet of the property line. Staff (Angelica Herrera) had nothing further to add to the report. OPENED PUBLIC HEARING Bruce Askari, 27830 Elena Road, applicant, thanked staff for their help. He has very supportive neighbors with no objections from anyone. He asked that condition #16 be deleted because they have connected to the sewer system. Also, condition #18, as the existing pathway has been constructed during the subdivision process and was accepted by the Town. This should not be an issue. He asked that the front driveway setback be pushed inward approximately 25 feet from the property line. He demonstrated his request on the plans indicating a shift of the garage further into the property as opposed to the property line. CLOSED PUBLIC HEARING 4 Commissioner Clow felt the variance findings were appropriate and could support the project. All Commissioners agreed. It was clarified that conditions #16 and #18 are complete and should still be a part of the conditions of approval MOTION SECONDED, AMENDED AND PASSED: Motion by Commissioner Clow and seconded by Commissioner Kerns to approve the Site Development Permit for a new residence, and a variance to grade within 10 feet of the property line, Lands of Askari, 27830 Elena Road, with the recommended conditions of approval.. AYES: Chairman Vint, Commissioners Clow, Cottrell, Kerns &Wong NOES: None This approval is subject to a 22 day appeal period. 3.7 LANDS OF BLAIR, 27161 Fremont Road (126 -02 -TM -ND); A request for approval of a two lot subdivision of 3.07 acres, and reuse of a mitigated Negative Declaration (APN# 175-32-27). Staff (Deborah Ungo-McCormick) introduced this item. She noted the previous approval (1998) of this subdivision, with improvements to the creek required by the Santa Clara Valley Water District. The time for the approval expired. Since that time, the Santa t Clara County has revised their requirement and has agreed not to widen the creek. The 4r previous conditions have been carried over adding the Environmental Design Committee Planning Commission Minutes Approved 10/24/02 September 12, 2002 Page 13 comments that buffer landscaping be installed. A condition has been added regarding lot 2 that the landscape plan include any neighbor mitigation and installed prior to construction. She further discussed access to the property. OPENED PUBLIC HEARING Bob Blair, 27161 Fremont Road, applicant, asked for clarification on condition #11 as it refers only to the culvert and should include the creek bed. CLOSED PUBLIC HEARING Brief discussion ensued. All agreed to support the application with the added language in #11. MOTION SECONDED, AMENDED AND PASSED: Motion by Commissioner Clow and seconded by Commissioner Kerns to recommend to the City Council approval of a two lot subdivision of 3.07 acres, and re -use of a mitigated Negative Declaration (APN #175-32-27), Lands of Blair, with a change in wording in condition #11, so that it applies to the creek bed as well and the culvert. AYES: Chairman Vitu, Commissioners Kerns, Clow, Cottrell &Wong 4 NOES: None This item will be scheduled for a City Council agenda. 3.8 FRIENDS OF WESTWIND BARN (LANDS OF LOS ALTOS HILLS), 27210 Altamont Road (39 -02 -CUP); A review of the Conditional Use Permit. Commissioner Clow stepped down from the hearing due to the proximity of the project site to his residence. The Planning Director introduced this item reviewing the Use Permit renewal stating all previous issues have been resolved except for the erosion issue on a hillside portion of a horse pasture. Friends of Westwind Barn indicated they would hydro seed the area which is a fairly common technique, and fence the area so horses will not eat the new grass. He noted that this is Town owned land and the Town has an obligation to make sure erosion issues are taken care of (a liability issue). Susan Dunn, Director, Friends of Westwind Barn, reviewed the memo from DuBose Montgomery and Eric Clow. She did not feel there was a sanitation or safety issue but from the neighbors position, an aesthetics issue. They would like to improve the appearance of the new pasture. She reviewed their plan submitted for reconstruction of Planning Commission Minutes Approved 10/24/02 September 12, 2002 `' Page 14 the pasture. There is difficulty removing the boarded horses and generated income. They have been in correspondence with the Town since March and were under the impression that the principle concern in regard to erosion was the road that leads to the upper and lower arena across the hillside. They spent their energy preparing a plan and talking to the Commission about funding the relocation of the road. They could redirect those recourses to address the re -vegetation but She was not sure they could do it by October, asking for a little more flexibility in how the Use Permit is restricted. DuBose Montgomery, 27464 Altamont Road, closest neighbor to the feeding pasture, lower arena. He expressed support of the Friends of Westwind Bam handicap riding program and pony club. He felt it was important for them to be sensitive to protecting the environment on the land they are leasing from the Town. The worst erosion in the Town is in the area of the feeding pasture on the north hillside (photographs were provided). At a minimum they should hydro -seed. He would prefer they also plant some oak trees on the hillside with the scattering of wildflower seeds which would make the area more attractive and more environmentally friendly. Also, at a minimum, they should fence off the area, removing the eight horses. He appreciated the changes they have done to reduce the noise and the horse flies. If, however, the management or staff of Friends of Westwind Bam changes in the future he would like some written assurances, either by letter to the Town or in their Conditional Use Permit, promising that these mitigating actions will continue to be implemented in the future. He further highlighted his letter of 4 August 23, 2002. Eric Clow, 27660 Central Drive, agreed with the outline provided by Mr. Montgomery. He would like to make sure the Town's noise ordinance is upheld. Mike O'Malley, 27781 Edgerton Road, board member, Friends of Westwind Bam, stated this was a wonderful organization which provides many uses and recreation for the Town. He felt the issue was more beautification than erosion. He felt the Commission should allow them reasonable time for removing the boarded horses (four to five months). Jane Kawasaki, 27078 Fremont Road, Board member, Friends of Westwind Barn, stated they are considering a year round riding program and if they were to limit the number of horse shows it would impact the Park and Recreation Committee's programs. Currently, fifty percent of the horses are owned by Los Altos Hills residents. The horse shows have been the most popular Parks and Recreation program. This is a very vital and important asset. Regarding the erosion, she suggested a geological survey or a soils sample for a clear understanding of the situation. Further discussion ensued regarding horse shows in the lower arena. Zsuzsanna Molnar, 12541 Zappettini Court, voiced support of Westwind Bam. She asked the Commission to give them support and flexibility while holding them to their ` responsibilities. Planning Commission Minutes Approved 10/24/02 September 12, 2002 L Page 15 + Sandy Humphries, Environmental Design Committee, asked the Commission to give the Friends of Westwind Bam time to address the erosion issues as it will take time and some experimentation. Dan Alexander, 27200 Elena Road, President, Friends of Westwind Barn, celebrating 25 years, felt if they exclude horses from the entire "A" area it would be a financial crisis. They need time to correct the area. He asked for a couple of winters to experiment with hydro -seeding to resolve the erosion problem. Breene Kerr, 27261 Sherlock Road, felt the Bam was a valuable Town asset, however, financially limited. They should not put them at risk. He felt allowing them at least one winter would be reasonable then revisit the issue to see if it needs further study. CLOSED PUBLIC HEARING Commissioner Cottrell thought they should give them a reasonable amount of time, perhaps two winters, reporting back after the first winter. He did not agree with fencing off the entire area. A geologist could study the situation to see if there is or isn't a real problem although it did not sound to him that there is a real problem. He felt only the upper corner should be fenced. Commissioner Kerns supports the Westwind Barn. He did not have a problem with the conditions except they need more time for hydro - seeding. He agreed with Commissioner Cottrell's suggestion regarding the time frame. He also would like to see some oak trees planted. Commissioner Wong also supports Westwind Bam and agreed with the suggested two winters to allow time to improve the situation. He would not want to impair the operation of the barn. Chairman Vitu also supports Westwind Barn which is a wonderful community asset and they do not want to endanger their operation They do have a responsibility to make sure the land is managed correctly. She would like them to return after one winter for review. MOTION SECONDED, AMENDED AND PASSED: Motion by Commissioner Cottrell and seconded by Commissioner Wong to recommend to the City Council approval of the amendment to the conditions of approval for the existing Use Permit, Friends of Westwind Bam, with the following changes/additions to the conditions of approval: condition #2, "The perimeter of the upper hillside portion of the feeding pasture shall be fenced." condition #3, "The applicant shall initiate measures to control erosion on the upper hillside portion of the feeding pasture this winter and then return to the Planning Commission in the spring for a progress report. The pasture must be fully restored and re -vegetated not later than spring of 2004." Correction to condition #13, removing Commissioner Gottlieb's name. AYES: Chairman Vitu, Commissioners Kerns, Wong & Cottrell NOES: None ABSTAIN: Commissioner Clow Planning Commission Minutes Approved 10/24/02 September 12, 2002 Page 16 4W 3.9 LANDS OF KERNS, 11885 & 11888 Francemont Drive (File #130 -02 - TM -ND -GD): A request for a two -lot subdivision on a 21.34 acre parcel and Negative Declaration (APN # 351-03-013). Commissioner Kerns stepped down from the hearing as he is the applicant for the proposed subdivision. Chairman Vitu stepped down from the hearing as she and Commissioner Kerns are both running for City Council and working collaboratively in some parts of their campaign to avoid any perception of conflict of interests. The Planning Director introduced this item by referred to the interoffice memo from the City Attorney, Steven Mattas, regarding there being a previous condition on the Tentative Map that was approved 1988 for this area. One of the conditions was that there be no further subdivision of this upper parcel which is in question this evening. The Planning staff and City Attorney have reviewed the title report and the original Tentative Map and there is no mention of this condition. It only exists as part of a staff report and conditions of approval. There is a question regarding the legality of the condition which the City Attorney will review, providing a full report for the City Council. If the Commission approves the subdivision, the City Attorney recommends you must also recommend that the City Council either remove or modify this condition prohibiting such subdivision that the Council adopted in 1988. As noted in the staff report, there is no documentation that would explain why this condition was imposed. `I Deborah Ungo-McCormick, Planning Consultant, presented the remainder of the staff report, in particular, the existing ingress/egress easement from Lot 2 be eliminated. It would maintain all of the other easements. The subdivision findings have been met. The issues that have been identified as part of the Environmental document specifically related to the geotechnical aspects of the site. They did find that Lot 1 would be potentially constrained because there were concerns regarding the western portion of the lot and any future development would have to undergo further geotechnical review. She reviewed the recommended conditions of approval: #4, does not need to go through the quitclaim process; #6, 333 575 ft. contours; #11, old condition, not needed (delete). She also made corrections to the Table on page 3. OPENED PUBLIC HEARING Bill Kerns, 11888 Francement Drive, applicant, discussed the 21 acre site with a lot unit factor of 3.44. The LUF for lot 2 as indicated in the staff report on page 3 should be 2.62, not 1.08 and in the Negative Declaration also. The construction of the driveway was discussed along with proposed landscaping. He provided a history of the property noting it was not their original intention to subdivide the property or they would have built the lower site differently. In 1997, they received a quote for the driveway however it has cost more than budgeted. Their banks will not loan additional funds unless they have a separate parcel they can borrow against. This is the justification for the subdivision. They would prefer not selling the lower lot. He mentioned a neighbor who was concerned with looking down on the property. They are certainly willing to provide Planning Commission Minutes Approved 10/24/02 September 12, 2002 Page 17 landscaping. Regarding the issue of no further subdivision, he provided a history of the property involving the original owner, Francis Block, in 1964, who was going to subdivide the site into eight lots. Eighteen acres are in a conservation easement and they have no intention of taking them out of the conservation easement. Also, in 1988, Mr. Gaither had a three lot subdivision approved. Susan Roberts, Giuliani & Kull, Inc., project engineer, stated the subdivision is in conformance with the current General Plan, current zoning and the subdivision ordinance. As noted in the staff report, the configuration of the lots are unusual, and the configuration of the existing lot is unusual as well as the topographic features. She discussed the design of the subdivision further and the background of the subdivision indicating she had reviewed their old files with Giuliani & Kull and could not find anything regarding the condition not to subdivide. As a part of the application, they are asking the Town to abandon that portion of the existing ingress/egress easement from Lot 2. Commission Cottrell asked if the 160 foot building circle on Lot 1 could he pushed to the west? She responded yes. Sandy Humphries, Environmental Design Committee, reviewed the 8/11/99 Planning Commission report and asked why this background was not in the current staff report. Many things have changed over the years. Saying once the property was going to be divided into eight lots means nothing. Things change. For someone to say they can no longer afford the construction is not a reason to bend the rules. Building on hillsides is not desirable. Carol Gottlieb, 24290 Summerhill Avenue, stated a financial situation does not have a bearing on land use. They should not take this into consideration. She further discussed the four building circles on the plans, asking if this larger piece could be further subdivided. The Planning Director indicated the circles are required by the subdivision ordinances. She also stated that the MDA/MFA figures are not indicated. Betty Kerns, 11888 Francemont Drive, applicant, explained the building circles required on the plans. She stated the property cannot be further subdivided due to the conservation easements. Regarding the MDA/MFA, they are not even close to maxing out on either of the two lots. Dot Schreiner, 14301 Saddle Mountain Drive, explained what happened with the Gaither subdivision approved in 1988 which states that no further subdivision of this lot shall take place. At the time, she was on the Pathway Committee and Bill Siegel, Lee Patmore and Bob Johnson were on the City Council and Planning Commission. She spoke to all three members. Collectively, their recollection was the Commission and City Council members were concerned with steepness of the terrain with the multiple problems of landslides, grading quantities needed and the open space qualities of the lot everyone wanted to keep. They unanimously voted for no further subdivision. She quoted the General Plan regarding slopes and the fact that the secondary dwelling was approved when it could not be subordinate to the main residence. The secondary unit did create a Planning Commission Minutes Approved 10/24/02 September 12, 2002 Page 18 4 separate parcel. Now they are being asked to allow an expansion of this development as well as allowing the new lot. She referred to the findings needed to approve the subdivision. Another concern was that many residents purchased their homes knowing the parcel could not be further subdivided. Peter Nieh, 25765 Bassett Lane, was troubled with the subdivision as they were told this property could not be subdivided. It would be wrong to approve it at this time. There is a lack of information. The Town has the responsibility to investigate the facts and deny this application. Bob Stutz, 25310 Elena Road, provided a history of the Gaither subdivision. Russell Hirsch, 11880 Francemont Drive, purchased his house for the unobstructed views. They took a look at potential construction and was told by staff that there was a condition regarding not subdividing the property. He felt there were negligence on the part of somebody who made the representation without doing the proper legal background check. He was not willing to look out his windows at someone else's roof when he was specifically told there was not the ability to build on the site. He voiced objection to this project. Roger Spreen, 11970 Rhus Ridge Road, originally objected to the construction on the top of the ridge. This appears to be much like Campbell & Ligeti; saying one thing and doing another later on. He encouraged the Commission to deny the subdivision. Liz Goodman, 11989 Rhus Ridge Road, provided a copy of the August 11, 1999 staff report to the Planning Commission regarding Lands of Kerns. She also provided photographs of the site. She referred to page 2 of the current staff report, "BACKGROUND", indicating there were major concerns voiced from adjacent property owners. She objected to the narrow width that connected the two lots. She voiced opposition to the subdivision. Steve McDonald, 11800 Francemont Drive, in 1996, he was under the impression the Kerns property could not be subdivided. The Kerns told him they purchased the property with the expectation of building on the top and that now the Town would not allowed it. They had spent over $100,00 on plans. They asked him to sign a petition of support which he did. Now he receives a notice regarding a subdivision of a property which he understood could not be subdivided. He was not in favor of a 5,000 square foot house in his back yard. He was concerned with the falling trees and voiced opposition to the project. Bill Kerns, in responding to several of the issues brought up, stated he had found in his files a tentative map dated 1988 which showed two home sites. They are not asking for any exceptions or variances. The subdivision request meets all of the Town ordinances. In 1997, at one of many City Council hearings, the question was put to Sandy Sloan, then City Attorney for the Town, the issues of no further subdividing. She indicated it was not Planning Commission Minutes Approved 10/24/02 September 12, 2002 Page 19 an enforceable condition and future City Council's could change it. He read the 1988 condition placed on the Gaither subdivision, #25, last sentence states "the conditions, covenants and restrictions shall not be amended without Council approval." It was clear there were conditions that could be changed. They feel that they have a right to subdivision. The lots totally comply. He further discussed the neighbors complaining about seeing his house noting he can see them also They have met the ordinances and should receive an approval. Peter Nieh, 25765 Bassett Lane, reiterated his concern regarding the subdivision. He made decisions regarding his property based on being told the property could not be subdivided. He did not feel a decision could be made when the facts have been ill prepared. Liz Goodman commented on the original Sec. 9-1.604 of the Municipal Code and the narrow width connecting the parcels. Breen Kerr, 27261 Sherlock Road, felt it was inappropriate to put a large home on the lower site. He felt with the past assurances made to the existing neighbors regarding subdividing, it opens it to a law suit. This is setting a poor precedent for how subdivisions should be laid out and doing it in a highly visible and sensitive area. He recommended denial. 4 CLOSED PUBLIC HEARING Commissioner Cottrell felt there were two issues: is it legal to subdivide the property or not, which he felt has not been researched adequately. There are two sides, one saying the City Council can amend the existing conditions and the other side saying they were promised this and it is not legal to subdivide. Another issue is whether it is a legal subdivision in the sense does it meet all the codes and ordinances which it does. He agrees that it is a gerrymandered boundary but the code does not say this is prohibited. A far more important issue is the one of whether it is legal to subdivide this property at all. He was not prepared to support the application until this has been researched. Commissioner Wong stated on one side he hears that a future Council could amend the conditions, and also hears they cannot. He does not have enough legal knowledge to tell which side is true. And if the Council voted to amend or change the limitations on lots, provided it meets the codes to subdivide, then it should be sub -dividable. This meets the codes. Commissioner Clow stated he had spoken to the City Attorney regarding the application. The City Attorney indicated that the condition prohibiting such subdivision that the Council adopted in 1988 does not prevent the Commission from recommending approval of the current tentative map for a two -lot subdivision of the existing parcel. He believed that there was a valid question of whether 30 feet or 60 feet was the correct minimum width for the new lot and requested staff to investigate with a recommendation to the Planning Commission Minutes Approved 10/24/02 September 12, 2002 Page 20 Council. Assuming the minimum width in the code is 30 feet, the application does meet the code and it is only fair to permit it. Assuming the correct minimum width is 30 feet he supports the application. MOTION SECONDED, AMENDED AND PASSED: Motion by Commissioner Wong and seconded by Commissioner Clow to recommend approval to the City Council for a two lot subdivision on a 21.34 acre parcel and Negative Declaration, Lands of Kems, 11885 & 11888 Francemont Drive, with the following additions/changes: make noted changes and corrections to the staff report and deleting condition #4; the City Council either remove or modify the condition prohibiting such subdivision that the Council adopted in 1988, and determine the correct minimum width for the new lot (30 feet or 60 feet), directing staff to investigate with a recommendation to the Council. AYES: Commissioners Clow, Cottrell, & Wong NOES: None ABSTAIN: Chairman Vito, Commissioner Kerns This item will be scheduled for a City Council agenda 4. OLD BUSINESS 4.1 Report from subcommittees 5. NEW BUSINESS -none 6. REPORT FROM THE CITY COUNCIL MEETING 6.1Planning Commission Representative for August 15`h, Commissioner Wong, presented an overview of the meeting, 6.2Planning Commission Representative for September 5`h, Commissioner Vita, provided an overview of the meeting. 6.31'lanning Commission Representative for September 19`h — Commissioner Clow 6APlanning Commission Representative for October 3rd — Commissioner Cottrell 7. APPROVAL OF MINUTES 7.1 Approval of August 8, 2002 minutes MOTION PASSED BY CONSENSUS: To approve the August 8, 2002 minutes. L9 Planning Commission Minutes September 12, 2002 Page 21 Approved 10/24/02 4 8. REPORT FOR FAST TRACK SrM DEVELOPMENT MEETING OF AUGUST 20 & SEPTEMBER 3 & 10.2002 8.1 LANDS OF MCKEE, 13888 Fremont Pines Lane (69-02-ZP-SD); A request for a Site Development Permit for a secondary dwelling unit. Approved with conditions. 8.2 LANDS OF FERRARI, 12100 Old Snakey Road (54-02-ZP-SD-GD); A request for a Site Development Permit for a new residence. Approved with conditions. 8.3 LANDS OF SHU, 26363 Esperanza Drive (109-02-ZP-SD); A request for a Site Development Permit for a secondary dwelling unit. Approved with conditions. 8.4 LANDS OF PFEIFER, 10519 Blandor Way (133-02-ZP-SD-GD); A request for a Site Development Permit for a new residence with attached secondary dwelling unit. Approved with conditions. 8.5 LANDS OF WESSBECHER, 11021 Magdalena Road (85-02-ZP-SD- GD); A request for a Site Development Permit for a new residence, a secondary dwelling unit, and a pool. Continued to the October 10, 2002 Planning Commission meeting. 9. REPORT FOR SITE DEVELOPMENT MEETING OF AUGUST 13. 2002 9.1 LANDS OF KALBACH, 13300 Burke Road (136-02-ZP-SD); A request for a Site Development Permit for a landscape screening plan. Approved with conditions. 10. ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned by consensus at 1:00 a.m. Resectfully submitted, L n thj Planning Secretary 4