Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout10/24/2002Minutes of a Regular Meeting Approved 11/14/02 Town of Los Altos Hills PLANNING COMMISSION Thursday, October 24, 2002, 7:00 p.m. Council Chambers, 26379 Fremont Road cc: Cassettes (2) #12-02 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 Vitu, Commissioners Clow, Cottrell & Kerns Absent: Commissioner Wong Staff: Carl Cahill, Planning Director; Mintze Cheng, City Engineer; Angelica Herrera. Assistant Planner; Lam Smith, Planning Secretary 2. PRESENTATIONS FROM THE FLOOR Jolon Wagner, 26786 Robleda Court, stated there have been remarks made at different Town meetings regarding St. Nicholas representatives not in favor of a pathways near or abutting the school property. She approached the current school principal and the pastoral associate. Roth were not aware that St. Nicholas had ever taken a position one way or another. She also spoke to Father Gary Thomas who stated St. Nicholas has a completely neutral position on the pathways. He was disturbed to learn that anyone had in any way attempted to misrepresent St. Nicholas' church or school neutrality on this issue. He intends to write letters to both the Planning Commission and Town Council to clarify that St. Nicholas does not intend to interfere. Please be alert that any pathways or easements that may be considered for removal in the area of St. Nicholas School or on the updated map should be revisited. 3. PUBLIC HEARINGS 3.1 LANDS OF HUANG, 27580 Arastradero Road (203 -00 -TM -ND -GD); A request to revise Tentative Map for a six -lot subdivision for the proposed relocation of the approved public cul-de-sac, Twin Oaks Court, in proximity to Amstradero Road. This item was introduced by the Planning Director noting the changes (cul-de-sac) will require less grading. The City Engineer stated there was no objection by the engineering department. OPENED PUBLIC HEARING Planning Commission Minutes Approved 11/14/02 October 24, 2002 Page 2 Bud Chor, 27580 Arastradero Road, project engineer, reviewed a letter from the applicant dated September 10, 2002, noting reasons for the modifications. Sandy Humphries, Environmental Design Committee, asked why there was fencing around the entire subdivision and was it necessary? She asked why staff did not question this request. It was clarified that the application being heard was not for a fence. CLOSED PUBLIC HEARING Brief discussion ensued. All Commissioners agreed this was a better plan for the Town and the public. MOTION SECONDED AND PASSED: Motion by Commissioner Clow and seconded by Commissioner Kerns to recommend to the City Council approval of the revised Tentative Map for the proposed relocation of the public cul-de-sac, Lands of Huang, 27580 Arastradem Road, with the recommended action as noted by the assistant engineer in the review letter dated October 17, 2002. AYES: Chairman Vita, Commissioners Cottrell, Kerns & Clow NOES: None ABSENT: Commissioner Wong This item will appear on the November 7, 2002 City Council agenda. 3.2 LANDS OF HUANG, 27580 Arastradem 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. The Planning Director introduced this item stating this is a request to remove a condition that required conservation easements. This is not a public hearing to remove the conservation easements that have been formally dedicated to the Town. The owner has cited a number of reasons for the removal. The reason staff required the conservation easements was due to steep slopes on lots 3 and 5 and the landslide repair area. At the time of subdivision, the conservation easements did not appear to interfere with any future development. He further discussed the subdivision code regarding conservation easements. If the Commission finds that the conservation easements are not necessary, then the applicant would be asked to pay the required park land in -lieu fees. Commissioner Clow understood that the applicant did not have a problem with conservation easements over areas of 50% slopes. The Planning Director noted that this could be an option if they want to place the conservation easements over the 50% slope areas, although they are very fragmented areas. Commissioner Clow felt they could recommend to the City Council that the 50% and over slope areas be placed in a conservation easement plus some additional land to make it contiguous. This would allow the houses to be set further back from the freeway to allow landscape mitigation. Planning Commission Minutes Approved 11/14/02 October 24, 2002 Page 3 OPENED PUBLIC HEARING Bud Chor, 27580 Arastradero Road, project engineer, provided a letter from the applicant referring to her neighbor at 14414 Saddle Mountain Drive. She stated that the fence issue was not relevant to the conservation easements, and requesting approval. The fence complies with Town ordinances. The applicant feels the fence is important for privacy and safety issues. He discussed the home site locations on lots 3 and 4 without the conservation easements, the landslide area, and the geotechnical report. Sandy Humphries, Environmental Design Committee, discussed the previous design and the swale which has been interfered with (major drainage area). She felt there was a misunderstanding regarding what a conservation easement is all about. They are to keep health eco systems for the wildlife and the environment. Mintze Cheng, City Engineer, stated engineering supports the piping through the area. Normally they ask for sheet flow but because this is a land slide area the current design was approved. Scott Vanderlip, 13851 Fremont Pines Lane, Scott Stack, and Michael Wagner, 26786 Robleda Court, read a statement regarding conservation easements and requirements for park and recreation dedication fees as stated in the Municipal Code. They felt this change in the way the code is being implemented requires serious review and analysis before any more conservation easements are exchanged for cash without evidence of what the possible impacts are and proof that the case mitigates those impacts. They recommended that the Commission not approve this request to exchange a conservation easement for a park in -lieu fee. They should discuss this important precedence setting decision first as well as the important environment impact it may cause on this lot and other future lots where a similar request could be made. All three readers voiced opposition to the request. Steve Bristow, 12355 Hilltop Drive, felt it was not in the interest of the Town to remove conservation easements for dollars. They should stop the process now of accepting in -lieu fees. Dot Schreiner, 14301 Saddle Mountain Drive, was also concerned with the fence around the property. She referred to Mr. Mills fence that he installed on his property in 1983 which has been removed without his permission. There is a visual impact which blocks three fourths of his view. She referred to the original Initial Study for this subdivision dated May, 2001 which has specific mitigation measures required of this subdivision, quoting from pages 2, 4, 6, and 27 of the staff report. The conservation easements that are required as well as the slide area repair and geotechnical issues are all requirements of the mitigated declaration. If they now allow the mitigation measures to be eliminated they are eliminating the requirements of the Neg. Dec. thus not making the findings for approval. She asked that the application be denied. Duncan McMillan, 27345 Natoma Road, voiced opposition to the project and the new fence. He felt everyone should read the May 2001 report. The original condition #19 (a) was added to the conditions stating "the highest point of the ridge of any structure located on lot 2 shall not exceed the finished first floor elevation of the existing residence located to the west". This Planning Commission Minutes Approved 11/14/02 October 24, 2002 Page 4 condition did not survive the Council and was substituted with #20, "The protection of views from the existing residence located to the west (Mills residence) shall be considered at the time of Site Development Permit review of Lot 2". The fence application should have been reviewed closer. Carol Gottlieb, 24290 Summerhill Avenue, was on the Planning Commission when this subdivision was approved. She read from the original staff report stating "in order to recommend approval of the document (Tentative Map), the Commission needs to find that any potential significant environmental effects are addressed through the proposed mitigation measures." The subdivision was approved with mitigation measures of the conservation easements. She further discussed the Circulation Element, Conservation Element, Open Space Element, and the Recreation Element as they relate to conservation easements. This subdivision needed the conservation easements and mitigation. Barbara O'Brien, 26815 Ortega Drive, discussed the new fence referring to it as the "great wall of Los Altos Hills". It destroys views. John Hughes, 27800 Saddle Court, noted that this went through the subdivision process and part of the process was the necessary conservation easements. There must have been findings. They need evidence for changing the initial document. He also referred to the construction of the solid fence which restricts wildlife movement and blocks views. 4W Sandy Humphries asked why the fence was needed and is there a process which allows people to request changes in a conservation easement. Jolon Wagner, 26786 Robleda Court, voiced opposition to the application CLOSED PUBLIC DARING Commissioner Kerns does not like removing conservation easements which were approved at the time of subdivision as there were reasons for the request (steep slopes, land slide areas, and groves of trees around the top part of the property). This sets a bad precedent allowing people to pay to give up their conservation easements. He does not have a problem negotiating and moving some conservation easements around to accommodate the building site although he would prefer keeping them as originally proposed. Commissioner Cottrell agreed. Applicants should not be able to buy their way out of conservation easements. He was not in support of the request. Also, he would like to do something about the fence, if possible, as it is an eye sore and should be changed. Commissioner Clow agreed. In speaking with the applicant, her purpose was to move the houses back further from the freeway to reduce noise and provide landscaping. He would not support removing the conservation easements but he could support adjustments to them to allow the sites to be moved further from the freeway, not removing trees, not within the 50% slope area, the landscape danger is not getting worse, and the total area of the conservation easement staying the Planning Commission Minutes Approved 11/14/02 October 24, 2002 Page 5 400 same. He also suggested an open fence in return for a more desirable siting. The conservation easement can be reviewed at the Site Development stage. Chairman Vita also agreed. They could review modifying the conservation easements to improve the siting of the home at the time of site development. She could not support deleting the conservation easements by paying an in -lieu fee. MOTION SECONDED AND PASSED: Motion by Commissioner Cottrell and seconded by Commissioner Kerns to recommend to the City Council denial of the request to delete the approved conservation easements and payment of in -lieu fees, Lands of Huang, 27580 Arastradero Road. AYES: Chairman Vita, Commissioners Clow, Kerns & Cottrell NOES: None ABSENT: Commissioner Wong This action is subject to a 23 day appeal period. 3.3 LANDS OF EVERSHINE, 13310 La Paloma Road (177-02-ZP-SD-GD); A request for a Site Development Permit for a 26,709 square foot new residence (maximum height 27 feet), pool and spa. rr Staff (Angelica Herrera) provided an overview of the application noting the proposed design is meant to lower the profile of the two story residence on a highly visible lot by partially burying the first floor below the existing grade. The applicant was advised by staff that the Planning Commission has the discretion to restrict the height of structures on highly visible lots such as this one. As a result of burying the home into the hilltop, two exceptions to the grading policy are required: maximum cut; and maximum fill allowed. The City Engineer (Mintze Cheng) discussed the proposed design and the 28,000 cubic yards of dirt that need to be removed or relocated. The plan indicates they are proposing to keep two-thirds of the excavation (19,000 cubic yards) which will be re -spread on their 11 acre site. If this is not allowed it would be very visible to the public to have off -haul trucks making 3,000 round trips to export the soil. This will also impact the roads. However, if this plan is approved the applicant would be conditioned to repair the streets and designate a truck route. The plan does not conform to the grading policy. The excess soil needs to spread around or hauled away. Commissioner Clow asked if there was an opportunity to keep the soil on the site. Ms. Cheng responded that sometimes they allow the dirt to stay on the site so there would be minimum impact on the streets. However, you are looking at 19,000 cubic yards of dirt, spreading it on a 11 acre site. It is not typical in Town to have such a large amount of dirt moved around a hillside. Her preference would be to off -haul the dirt and to condition the applicant to repair the roads. Discussion ensued regarding the difference of leaving two-thirds of the dirt on site or all of it on the site. She indicated that since the applicant wanted to move forward with the application, staff did not have the opportunity to look at options regarding the dirt prior to this meeting. OPENED PUBLIC HEARING Planning Commission Minutes Approved 11/14/02 October 24, 2002 Page 6 Fred Chan, 19770 Stevens Creek Blvd., Cupertino, applicant, stated they have been investigating a design for the site for the last five years. He wants to build a house for his family and minimize impacts on the neighborhood. They have held two open house sessions where seven of the neighbors voiced support. Tom Mope, Los Altos, landscape architect, indicated 70% of the site will be left in its natural state (undisturbed hillside). No trees are scheduled for removal and they are preserving all of the native mature trees which occur on the lower slopes of the property. In the past two years the applicant has established native planting and other plantings around the perimeter of project with the anticipation of development of this parcel. They have preserved the hilltop setting making it harmonious with local topography rather than having a large structure that steps down the slope or other conventional ways of putting a house on a hillside site. He further discussed the driveway conforming with fire department standards without requiring any retaining walls. A double alley of trees are proposed to help screen the driveway making it a more interesting environment. He further discussed other design features of the house, the proposed vegetation, outdoor living areas buffered from off-site views, and the placement of the house which exceeds minimum setback requirements. Terry Eger, 13050 Alta Lane North, voiced opposition to the project as he will be looking at 27,000 square feet of structure blocking bay views. He prefers a smaller house on the site. He was also concerned with the spreading the dirt on the site which will raise the hill two to three feet which will further impact his views. This looks like a commercial building or a hotel. He asked what will happen if the property is sold? He asked that the Commission not approve the project and not allow them to spread the dirt on the site. Rudolph Alfinito, 25870 Westwind Way, discussed the variety of homes in the area. This house looks like a hotel from his property. He felt they should move the house down the hillside, blending with the contours of the land which would be more appealing. The proposed height and size is in total disregard of the neighbors. They should take into consideration the impact of the neighbors. Carol Gottlieb, 24290 Summerhill Avenue, stated she has never before seen a vertical cut of 27 feet. This house is not designed according to the site development ordinances. Allison Taborek, 28190 Radcliff Lane, agreed with the previous speaker in that they should not allow houses to be built on crest lines. Robert Blair, 27161 Fremont Road, stated he will not be impacted but has known about the property for years. He thought the property was going to be subdivided. In general, the design is better than he expected and it is certainly better than four or five houses, if subdivided. Dot Schreiner, 14301 Saddle Mountain Drive, stated, if allowed, will set a precedent V Planning Commission Minutes Approved 11/14/02 October 24, 2002 Page 7 far Jolon Wager, 26786 Robleda Court, discussed other large projects on Templeton Place and Wildflower Lane. She described the many construction cars parking everywhere and the length of time for completion. She was not sure how this house could blend in. She asked that the Commission take into consideration the construction noise which will go on for years. Pong Ng, 1513 Fairway Drive, Los Altos, consulting architect, stated this is a rather large home on an extremely large lot. They are only using 64% of the allowed maximum floor area on this lot. In reality, there is only 11,000 square feet above ground; everything else is buried underneath. This is what triggers the large amount of dirt. He referred to the staff report regarding the figures for the first and second stories. They have tried to lower the house as much as possible into the hill. Yes, there is a 27 foot cut of which 10 feet is actually a basement maintained around the perimeter. The home is designed so no one sees the entire length of the home. It is difficult to hide the house from the neighbors to the south because they are above this site. He felt they were only blocking 2% of the overall horizon. If the home was placed somewhere else, there would be zero percent chance of the owners enjoying their property. If this house cannot be built, there is a possibility of subdividing the property for maximum value. It was clarified that the hill would actually be lower with the house on top of it then it is today. The maximum height above the existing peek of the crown is only about 5 feet. This is the reason for so much grading as they did their best to sink the home into the hill. Regarding the spreading of the dirt or taking it off the site, they will be spreading the dirt on the lower areas which will mitigate the number of truck trips. Two thirds of the dirt could be left on site. Susan Roberts, project civil engineer, explained there are only a few isolated areas with fill up to 7 feet which are berming areas. This will not effect Mr. Eger's views. Sheet flow design for drainage was discussed. Further discussion ensued regarding relocation of the home and the material used for the flat roof area. Mr. Ng also discussed the stability of the slope with compacting of the soil. This will be handled by the civil engineer. They have 11 '/z acres to spread the dirt around. Terry Eger stated he will be seeing the whole house. He was also concerned with the spreading of the dirt on the lower area. If the Commission decides to approve a 27,000 square foot home there is nothing he can do about it. However he can fight the dirt issue if it impacts him. Sandy Humphries, Environmental Design Committee, requested a conservation easement over the drainage area along the side of the road on the left, preserving the oak trees as well. Rudolph Alfinito, 25870 Westwind Way, sees the entire house as viewed by the story poles. CLOSED PUBLIC HEARING Commissioner Clow noted everyone would be happy to retain the open space. A 27,000 square foot house is a big house. The alternative could have been a subdivision with four 7,000 square foot houses with a few on the ridgeline. The 27 foot cut is to minimize the impact of the house. He felt the applicant has gone to extreme lengths to make this home blend into the knoll as much as possible. Assuming there is development on this property this is one of the best kind of Planning Commission Minutes Approved 11/14/02 October 24, 2002 Page 8 4 development you could have although it is not as good as nothing at all. He would prefer keeping all of the dirt on site and spreading it around with natural contours (engineered). He would support the application with the hope they could keep the dirt on site. Commissioner Cottrell stated this is a big house. They cannot tell the owners to build a smaller house. The applicants have gone to great lengths to create a design that minimizes the appearance from other locations. Regarding the Eger site, he was not sure anything could be built on the hill that would not obstruct some of his view because he is at a higher elevation. He was concerned with the large amount of dirt removal. There should be a way to spread the dirt in such a way so it will not move or create a slide hazard. If there is damage to the roads, they will need to be fixed. He supports the project if they can built in proper engineering for the soil work and mitigation for landscaping so the house will not be seen from other locations. There was a mention of a conservation easement as there are some very steep areas on the site. He did not know why they could not ask for conservation easements for areas where the slopes are over 40% to 50%. Commissioner Kerns noted that this house is probably one of the largest homes in the Hills. The ordinances do allow these numbers for the lot. It is much better than multiple homes spread across the land. The applicant has lowered the house by cutting it into the hill and tried to be sensitive to the neighbor's views. The landscape plan will be reviewed at the Commission level and at that time they can work with the neighbors regarding placement of landscaping. The height of the house does vary from 15 feet to 22 feet with a few areas up to 27 feet. He was also concerned regarding the grading and the fill on the site which needs to be looked at very carefully in respect to drainage and drainage swales making sure the water is routed appropriately to avoid erosion problems. He agreed with Commissioner Clow regarding a way to keep the dirt on site although he did not feel they should go much over the grading policy numbers of 3 feet. The house is below the maximum floor area allowed. He can support the project but he would like to have something relating to the drainage fill location. Chairman Vitu felt the applicants have worked very hard to lessen the impact of the house. This development will have less impact than a potential subdivision. The height on this ridgeline above existing grade goes from 15 feet to 22 feet. Regarding grading, it is important to spread soil to follow the contours. Drainage must be considered so there is no erosion or flow of soil changes to impact other properties. She was also in favor of keeping the dirt on site, if possible, with the three foot fill which will cause less damage to the roads and less visual impact on the neighbors. She can support the project. Commissioner Clow suggested a little flexibility with the three foot limit if, from an engineering point of view, there are places where it could be deeper and it works to the satisfaction of the engineering department. Keeping all of the dirt on site would prevent trucks from going on the roads and chewing up the pavement. He would prefer a way of spreading the dirt that is consistent with natural contours and with proper engineering and no erosion. Planning Commission Minutes October 24, 2002 Page 9 Approved 11/14/02 116 MOTION SECONDED AND PASSED: Motion by Commissioner Clow and seconded by Commissioner Kerns to approve the request for a Site Development Permit for a new residence, pool and spa, Lands of Evershine, 13310 La Paloma Road, with the following additions and changes to the conditions of approval: do everything possible, with good engineering, to keep the fill on site and do whatever planting, etc. is needed to prevent landslides or erosion problems and that the natural contours are maintained. The applicant shall work with the engineering department regarding on-site inspections during grading of the site. The applicant also needs to pay for the inspection costs and their soils engineer needs to be on-site to make sure the contractor complies to the design plan. The Town Geologist will also be on-site to review the grading operation. Staff will work with the applicant to expand the conservation easement to cover the oak tree area. AYES: Chairman Vitu, Commissioners Clow, Kerns & Cottrell NOES: None ABSENT: Commissioner Wong This approval is subject to a 23 day appeal period. 4. OLD BUSINESS 4.1 Report from subcommittees -none S. NEW BUSINESS -none 6. REPORT FROM THE CITY COUNCIL MEETING 6.1 Planning Commission representative for October 17' , Commissioner Kerns, reported on the following: proposed 2002 master path plan; fee schedule; and Town Hall project. 6.2 Planning Commission Representative for November 7� — Commissioner Wong 6.3 Planning Commission Representative for November 2151 — Commissioner Vito APPROVAL OF MINUTES 7.1 Approval of September 12, 2002 minutes APPROVED BY CONSENSUS: To approve the September 12, 2002 minutes. 7.2 Approval of September 26, 2002 minutes APPROVED BY CONSENSUS: To approve the September 26, 2002 minutes. Planning Commission Minutes Approved 11/14/02 October 24, 2002 Page 10 7.3 Approval of the October 10, 2002 minutes APPROVED BY CONSENSUS: To approve the October 10, 2002 minutes. 8. REPORT FOR FAST TRACK SITE DEVELOPMENT MEETING OF OCTOBER 15 & 22 2002 8.1 LANDS OF BOAL, 13860 Robleda Road (129-02-ZP-SD); A request for a Site Development Permit for a new residence and secondary dwelling unit. Approved with conditions. 8.2 LANDS OF SCHREINER, 12774 Leander Drive (155-02-ZP-SD-GD); A request for a Site Development Permit for a major addition. Approved with conditions. 8.3 LANDS OF IRANI, 24008 Oak Knoll Circle (172-02-ZP-SD-GD); A request for a Site Development Permit for a new residence, secondary dwelling, and pool. Approved with conditions. 8.4 LANDS OF ZIPOLO, 12675 Dianne Drive (120-02-ZP-SD-GD); A request for a Site Development Permit for a new residence, a secondary dwelling unit, and pool. Approved with conditions. 8.5 LANDS OF BRASSINGTON, 26020 Elena Road (141-02-ZP-SD-GD); A request for a Site Development Permit for a new residence with an attached secondary dwelling unit. Approved with conditions. 9. REPORT FOR SITE DEVELOPMENT MEETING, OCTOBER 15 & 22, 2002 9.1 LANDS OF GODINHO, 12250 Menalto Drive (175-02-ZP-SD); A request for a Site Development Permit for a grading and landscape plan. Approved with conditions. 9.2 LANDS OF PICA, 12000 Kate Drive (139-02-ZP-SD); A request for a Site Development Permit for a pool and cabana with a basement. Approved with conditions. 9.3 LANDS OF JIA, 12101 Stonebrook Drive (83-02-ZP-SD); A request for a Site Development Permit for a pool, spa, and landscaping. Approved with conditions. 06 Planning Commission Minutes October 24, 2002 Page 11 10. ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned by consensus at 9:20 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Lani Smith Planning Secretary 4 Approved 11/14/02