Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout01/22/2004Minutes of a Regular Meeting Approved 2/12/04 `" Town of Los Altos Hills PLANNING COMMISSION Thursday, January 22, 2004,7:00 p.m. Council Chambers, 26379 Fremont Road cc: Cassettes ( 2 ) #2-04 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 Clow, Commissioners Mordo, Vita, Cottrell & Kerns Staff: Carl Cahill, Planning Director; Debbie Pedro, Associate Planner; Lam Smith, Planning Secretary 2. PRESENTATIONS FROM THE FLOOR -none 3. PUBLIC HEARINGS 3.1 LANDS OF KERNS, 11888 Francemont Drive (225-03-ZP-SD); A request for a Site Development Permit for a landscape screening plan. (staff -Carl Cahill) Commissioner Kerns, as the applicant, stepped down from the hearing. Staff introduced this item by noting the receipt of a new set of plans along with revised conditions of approval and other exhibits today by the project architect. He had discussed the submittal with the City Attorney, noting three options: (1) Continue the item until everyone has had an opportunity to review the new information; (2) Go forward with the plans in the packet; (3) To review the plans that were submitted today along with the revised conditions of approval prepared by the applicant along with the other exhibits. However, option 3 is an exception to the policy applied to other residents as final plans need to be submitted at least 10 days prior to public hearing for review by staff and the public. Discussion ensued regarding reviewing current plans along with the revised plans; no opportunity to comment on new plans, and the applicant applying technical reasons for why they can no longer do what they proposed and why they cannot comply with what the neighbors have requested. Due to the lateness of receiving the new information, staff has not had an opportunity to verify the statements made by the applicant's experts. The changes involve the prime area of contention between the applicants and neighbors. The new proposal is less than what was originally submitted and less than what the neighbors had requested. Staff would recommend going forward with the review of the plans as submitted in the packet. If this is not agreeable to ( the applicant, the application could be continued to allow time for review Planning Commission Minutes Approved 2/12/04 January 22, 2004 Page 2 Commissioner Vitu felt since the new proposal is less than the original proposal they should not review the new proposal nor continue the application as there were a number of people in the audience who may wish to speak on this project. Commissioner Cottrell also did not feel it was appropriate to consider the new proposal without the benefit of prior review. Commissioner Mordo agreed. Chairman Clow also agreed that they should proceed with the original proposal. MOTION SECONDED AND PASSED: Motion by Commissioner Vitu and seconded by Commissioner Mordo to go forward in the review of the landscape screening plans as presented in the packet, Lands of Kerns, 11888 Francemont Drive. AYES: Chairman Clow, Commissioners Cottrell, Mordo & Vitu NOES: None The Public Hearing continued. The Planning Director introduced the application by reviewing the staff report. He stated that the applicants have done an excellent job in terms of plant species (native). However, the neighbors have expressed concern regarding the size of the screening trees. The Kerns' architect, Bill Masten, had met on the site with staff and a landscape architect hired by one of the neighbors to go over issues relating to placement of screening trees. At that time, the location of the screening trees was agreed upon with only a disagreement regarding the size of the trees. The Kerns architect felt comfortable going up to a 36" box oaks; the neighbors were asking for two 48" box oaks (a recommendation from their architect), one 60" box multi - stem oak, and three regular 60" box oaks. An additional issue for the neighbors was lighting. The conditions of approval required that the lights be down shielded and the light source not be visible from off site. The lights being proposed are more of a lantern style which broadcasts the lighting outward. He further discussed landscaping requirements and the retaining wall. Originally, the retaining wall was to be a keystone type construction. For some reason, it would not work so what was brought back to the Commission as part of a memo was a shot Crete style to simulate the appearance of a natural rock as you see on Hwy 92 going toward Half Moon Bay. Apparently that could not be done so at this time they are left with landscaping as the primary means to screen the retaining wall. One neighbor is requesting shrubs and trees which are large in size to cover at least half of the wall height at this time. The applicant has submitted information regarding 15 gallon trees (versus larger trees) which grow faster. Staff has checked with a local arborist, Barrie Coate, who indicated there is no good reason not to use 24" or 36" boxed coast live oaks if they were not root bound at earlier stages of production, and they often grow as rapidly as smaller container sized trees, especially if the smaller trees were root bound as they often are. OPENED PUBLIC HEARING Bill Masten, 384 Castro Street, Mountain View, project architect, stated he had past experience as a landscape architect early in his career. Reflecting back, he stated a month ago he had one set of ideas and solutions, and after meeting with the Planning Director and a number of the neighbors he had another set of solutions. He had no idea dropping off an alternate plan the day of the Commission meeting would cause such an uproar. For the record, they are happy to live with the plan that is before the Commission. They do not have to modify the plan at all if they accept it in its current form. After discussing the landscape plan with several arborist, it seems Planning Commission Minutes Approved 2/12/04 January 22, 2004 Page 3 everyone has a different idea as to how big a tree should be and how big each grows over time. They felt if you have a tree 10 feet tall and 5 feet across it will provide most of the blocking/screening. The issue has to do with how much they have to screen or should screen. At this point they are suggesting in their plan 36" box trees. They can get a tree (does not matter if it is 36') if they can agree that they want 10 feet in height and five feet across, then he feels they have satisfied the neighbors. In the area of most concern expressed by the neighbor is actually flat so it will be easy to plant the trees requested as showing on plan. The other areas where it gets steeper gets more questionable. They have addressed the neighbor's concerns with changes and any area of no concern has remained the same (15 gallon trees). They have also modified the plan to address the concerns of the adjacent neighbor regarding the retaining wall and the area down by the entry. He provided a power point presentation of the proposed landscaping showing tarps 10 feet above the existing grade stating they are convinced that the 10 foot initial height coverage will be adequate. In conclusion, he stated that they were willing to live with what is on the plan. They did not mean to complicate the day by submitting some alternatives although, for record, their geologist does have concerns regarding the size of trees you can plant on a steep hillside. The next issue is timing of implementing the landscape plan as the fall and winter seasons are the best time to plant native plants. They would like to get everything planted this year. Mr. Maston further discussed lighting stating what, as an architect, is he required to provide for safety or code versus what may be unnecessary. He began by addressing the necessity items r which included everything on the house except for one light that may not be required by the ` family room. He provided a comparison of two example lights; one lantern and one shielded fixture with up and down lights. Reflected lights off the building wall was discussed. The homes that are effected are looking up at a 30° to 400 angle. It may be possible that they see the light source at this angle. He asked how you could actually remove a light source with either examples having the same apparent brightness from 500-1000 yards away. Commissioner Clow asked what was his intention with the revised plans he submitted that day. Mr. Maston indicated it was addressing comments from the geologist which indicated that they should not plant anything greater than a five gallon oak tree on any slope greater than 30%. He felt this statement effected seven or eight trees on the site. Commissioner Mordo questioned the two types of lights shown indicating there are many more types of lights available asking why they picked the two example lights shown. Mr. Maston stated the reasons; aesthetics, and he felt it does not matter what type of down shielded light it is as long as it is meeting the intent of the ordinance (light source). Commissioner Mordo felt he was missing the spirit behind the ordinance which is to make the lighting less obtrusive. When he drove by the property the night before, he felt the lighting was very obtrusive with a beacon effect. Mr. Masten stated if they decided that the lantern style light is more obtrusive than the down shielded light, this would not allow him to use frosted glass as a solution. He has been at numerous meetings when the staff, Commission and Council has allowed a frosted glass as a solution. He did not see any difference between the lantern light and the down shielded light from 500 feet away. Planning Commission Minutes Approved 2/12/04 January 22, 2004 Page 4 4 Commissioner Clow suggested public discussion regarding lighting only then go back to the review of the landscaping plan. Russell Hirsch, 11880 Francemont Drive, discussed the presentation and felt it was misrepresentative of what an actual eye sees versus camera lenses. Peter Nieh, 25765 Bassett Lane, presented a photo indicating the window areas which indicate 14 locations of exterior lights which faces his house. He stated that photos taken by Mrs. Kerns from his property were not representative of his actual view. He felt there was definitely a way to have lights here without seeing the light source if they were properly down shielded. He provided examples of truly down shielded lights found in a few minutes on Goggle. He felt there was a way to be neighborly and find down shielded lights that fit the Kerns style of house. He did not feel either example of lights provided by the Kerns were down shielded. The definition of down shielding is 'light cannot emanate above the horizontal'. It does not mean you cannot see the light source. They are only asking for what was stated in the Site Development Permit conditions of approval (down shielded and not visible from offsite). He still does not understand why they need so many lights and he did not feel they were all required or needed by code. Roger Spreen, 11970 Rhus Ridge Road, discussed his memo addressed to the Commission regarding screening and lighting. When he built his home, he had the same lighting condition and found it easy to comply. This house is one of the most extremely visible houses in this area of town. He asked that the applicants do the right thing to provide truly down shielded lights, as stated in the conditions of approval. Discussion ensued regarding landscaping. It was agreed to split the motion between lighting and landscaping to prevent holding up the winter planting schedule. However, Commissioner Mordo felt some of the lighting could be mitigated with landscaping. Commissioners Cottrell and Commissioner Vitu as well and Chairman Clow were in agreement to separate the motions for landscaping and lighting. Bill Maston stated they do want to satisfy the neighbors. He agreed that there may be lighting that they have not found yet. At a minimum today, he hoped for approval of the landscaping and perhaps be given more time to find alternatives for the lighting. He did feel there was enough information gathered to make a decision on the landscape plan. The Planning Director stated there was no provision for frosted glass for this property. Condition #5 states low wattage, down shielded and not visible from off site. At this point, the light source is visible from off site. Peter Nieh stated what effects them the most is the night time because the light will come out through their numerous windows. Lighting is very important to them in addition to the screening. The Planning Director stated landscaping would definitely be a long time solution for this site. Planning Commission Minutes Approved 2112/04 January 22, 2004 Page 5 Sandy Humphries, Environmental Design Committee, stated when the committee looks at lighting they allow the two post lightings to have frosted glass and be a little more visible than the other lights. The other lights must be completely shielded down. This is vital on a highly visible property like this one. Bill Maston suggested using some motion sensors so the lights would only be on when needed. Bill Kerns, applicant, stated they will not be leaving the lights on most of the time. He discussed the style of the house and the importance of using the wrought iron lighting fixtures being proposed. They would be willing to accept putting them on motion sensors so they would only go on when someone would be walking along the area. CLOSED THE PUBLIC HEARING ON LIGHTING Commissioner Cottrell felt they should apply the down lighting condition as stated in the staff report. There is no basis for making an exception. Commission Vitu felt the use of motion sensors was a great idea. She would like the Kerns to work with the neighbors to find something that they all agree is the best solution and fits with the Kerns home. Commissioner Mordo viewed the site from the neighbor's house and felt since they have received everything they have asked for on the two properties they should do the right thing to mitigate the site for the neighbors. Chairman Clow stated he had looked at the two lights from Moody Road and Altamont Road and felt they were the same brightness but felt the down shielded light was bright white and was the brightest they could have picked. He felt it was possible to have a down shielded light hidden in the eaves that would shine down in an area in front of the door with minimum reflection on the wall. Potentially they could keep the black lantern fixtures on the wall without bulbs. He felt it was important to look into these types of possibilities. The Kerns need to work harder to make the light source less visible. He suggested having the Kerns return to the Planning Commission for review of the lighting plan that meets the requirement (not visible from off site). He felt it was important to ask the Building Official if the lights meet code requirements. The example lights are very bright. He suggested continuing the lighting plan, not holding up occupancy. He felt it was important to have input from the neighbors. MOTION SECONDED AND PASSED: Motion by Commissioner Vita and seconded by Commissioner Cottrell to continue the lighting plan, Lands of Kerns, 11888 Francemont Drive, for 45 days to provide time for the applicants to work with the neighbors to develop a lighting plan consistent with the site development permit condition of approval which required the lighting to be not visible from off site and down shielded or the applicant shall return to the Planning Commission for review. The continuance shall not delay occupancy. AYES: Chairman Clow, Commissioners Cottrell, Mordo & Vitu NOES: None Landscaping discussion ensued. 4W Planning Commission Minutes Approved 2/12/04 January 22, 2004 Page 6 4 Bill Masten discussed Mr. Nieh's altemative proposal for additional screening agreeing on a height. They tentatively discussed previously using trees 10 feet in height and 5 feet in width which basically turns out to be an approximate size of a 36" box tree. Sharon Nieh, 25765 Bassett Lane, discussed the purchase of their property with pristine views in 2000. At that time there was not another visible home in their view. Three months after the purchase story poles were erected for the Kerns proposed two story home. Not only were the Kerns allowed to build beyond Town restrictions, they were also allowed to subdivide the property. What was to be an in-laws home on the lower site is now right in the middle of their view. She felt special treatment was given to this development. She discussed continued damage to their view and presented a video of the site. Peter Nieh discussed the video noting the combination effect of outdoor lights and window lights onto their property. There is glare coming off of the roof as well as the garage windows. He discussed the 14 areas of concern which needed screening and adequate shielding. He did not feel the 10 foot high and 5 foot across trees were adequate, preferring 15 feet in height and 10 feet across. Gary Richmond, architect, working with Ron Herman landscape architect, was familiar with Los Altos Hills area screening issues. Peter Nieh hired his services to review the Kerns landscaping plan. He viewed the Kerns site from the Nieh site stating there is a 100 foot length needing screening. He discussed the original design which he felt was inadequate. They reviewed what they considered appropriate and reasonable, using standard nursery material, recommending four 60" box size and two 48" box size to create variety, staggering spacing from 12-24 feet which effectively screens the 100 foot section. In terms of numbers, they have only asked to go from three trees to six trees and to increase the size appropriate to screen the building from the angle of viewing from the new residence. The photograph that was presented with the blue tarp is interesting but there is much of the building left visible. He did not feel that the 10 foot height across the entire length was adequate. In order to get a height of 15 feet, they are looking at 60" box size trees. When they had all met on the site, the number of trees were agreed to but not the size. He stated that when looking at the 100 foot strip, a combination of 60" box size trees and 48" box size trees will effectively screen 50% which is reasonable. They are not looking for total screening but they know 50% screening will gradually increase over time to 100%. When looking at 36" box size trees, it only cover 35%. He felt the issue was what will provide immediate relief to the neighbors. Chairman Clow asked if these trees could be transported up the driveway under the existing oaks. Mr. Richmond responded he was not sure however trees are shipped on their side so there should not be a problem clearing the oak trees. Chairman Clow questioned which trees grow faster. Mr. Richmond answered with an example of growth stating it would take 8-9 years for a 15 gallon tree to catch up with the 48" and 60" box size trees. It is true that the rate of growth on the larger trees is not as fast but it is a long time to wait for a smaller tree to catch up. You do not actually want a lot of growth vertically but in width which is the more dramatic concern of the neighbors. Planning Commission Minutes Approved 2/12/04 January 22, 2004 Page 7 4 Commissioner Vitu referred to the chart in the staff report regarding a 36" box tree with a height of 12'-13' and a spread of 5'-6' compared to a 48" box with a height of 14'-16' and a spread of T- 8' asking how long would it take for a 36" box tree to grow to the 48" box tree size. Mr. Richmond responded 1'/2 to 2 years under nursery conditions and under planting conditions it varies. She was concerned with the size hole needed for the 60" box trees asking how large of a hole needs to be excavated? Mr. Richmond stated the hole would be only slightly larger than the root ball. She asked if a retaining wall is needed, would that root bound the tree? Mr. Richmond responded no. You do not actually build a retaining wall. It is not a formal wall. You just dry stack boulders to contain the outer edge. The trees are very happy in that condition because they have excellent drainage. Discussion ensued regarding the stability of the oak trees in heavy wind. Mr. Richmond stated that the 24" and 36" box trees are staked, the 48" box trees are rarely staked, and the 60" box size tree is not staked as the root ball is massive enough to hold the tree in place. Russell Hirsch, 11880 Prancemont Drive, commented on two 1'h to 2 foot lower retaining walls which are visible from his house. The Kerns have planted some small trees there. He asked for more immediate relief from looking at several hundred feet of concrete retaining walls suggesting planting bushes three -fourth the height of the retaining walls with adequate width for some immediate relief. What is planned and appears on the plan is unsatisfactory. Sandy Humphries, Environmental Design Committee, stated the committee reviewed the site noting it is difficult to mitigate the house with the slopes on either side of it. Their best recommendation was to try to get something up close to the house suggesting Bay Laurel trees so they could actually be trimmed around the windows to not obstruct their views. They thought the applicant had agreed to one Bay Laurel tree by the library. However, the plan shows "Toyon" noting a Toyon is a bush not a tree. She also suggested to help with mitigation using trellising and vines recommending the native grape. Discussion ensued regarding Mr. Hirsch's request and the fact that his gardener inadvertently killed the vegetation between the two retaining walls and a compensation of $2000 was made to the Kerns for replanting the area. Bill Maston continued by stating the landscape plan before the Commission has been more than doubled in quantity from what was presented a month ago. He felt it was a good idea to use Oregon grape against the retaining walls which they have done and he suggested continuing the grape down the walls farther for more coverage. There will always be the controversy regarding what size trees to plant. They are showing on plan what they feel is appropriate which is primarily one gallon cans with a inter mix of shrubs which will grow 6 to 8 feet on average. He noted that they are already showing six 36" boxes at the top of the hill proposing keeping the six trees but moving them down and introducing more Bay Laurel trees (15' height in a 24" box) which can be used for screening the Nieh property side. Since the Bay Laurel will only grow CJ Planning Commission Minutes Approved 2/12/04 January 22, 2004 Page 8 (60 where there is adequate water, they will not grow on the canyon side but will work on the right hand side where the 15' trees are being proposed and if they just change the specimen altogether to Bay Laurel it should work. On the other side of the Bay Laurel tree there is another opening where an additional Bay Laurel can be placed to fill in the area. They can get Bay Laurels 15' in height in a 24" box with a good anticipated spread. He also mentioned moving the 6 oak trees closer together covering more space by adding three Bay Laurels. Peter Nieh would feel better if he knew how many trees are being proposed as the concern is for adequate height and width. Sarah, 11880 Francemont Drive, discussed the original plan regarding the retaining wall which was to be an interlocking key type system which was not done. The Commission allowed the Kerns to build a solid concrete wall that is very unattractive. They stare at two walls. There is no design to the concrete and it is completely exposed. The Commission needs to view the area from their house. All she is asking for is to hide the wall. Bill Kerns stated that when they bought the property and built on this site they tried to be sensitive. The plan shows many trees along the driveway. The house has been set down into the site, and cut down with low profiles. They have tried to keep as much of the vegetation around the site as possible, only removing two trees to build the house. There is a large Bay Laurel tree that sits at the end of the garage which helps screen the house. He liked the idea of the additional Bay Laurels. One concern noted in the letter from his geotechnical engineer was regarding adding retaining walls on very steep slope. So whatever they decide, they should discuss the height and the crown spread and not so much the size of the box. He felt that on the top of the site where the tarps are shown 10 foot high trees do a good job screening most of the house. He did not feel it was expected to screen the entire house initially. He agreed that the retaining walls are ugly and they have tried planting in the area to address Russell Hirsch's concerns. The wall is only five feet tall with a one foot curb on top so a three foot shrub should hide most of the wall. He felt the plan as submitted, not with the 48" box and the 60" box that has been conditioned, is a good plan with the addition of some Bay Laurels in the area. CLOSED PUBLIC HEARING Commissioner Mordo felt there were many arguments brought up but in the end the only disagreement is a question of money. The only difference in the size of trees is money, maybe $30,00 - $40,000. He stated that the Town allowed the applicant to subdivide the property and reap a windfall from selling the lower lot. The neighbors have suffered for years during the whole construction of the house which he felt was very obtrusive and shatters the serenity of the landscape and the pristine views that had existed before construction. He felt it was a small price to pay to provide the requested screening discussed by the neighbors. This is the right thing to do. He agreed with the recommendation as noted in the staff report including Attachment 6. In addition, he would add a stipulation that the plantings against the retaining wall should initially cover 75% of the surface so within a few years it would be 100% shielded. The fine tuning 4 regarding the Bay Laurel, etc. can be supervised by the Town staff. Planning Commission Minutes Approved 2112/04 January 22, 2004 Page 9 Commissioner Vitu stated, after looking at the photo with the blue tarp, if that type of height can be achieved it would be sufficient. You would need 15' trees whether it can be achieved with the three Bay Laurels and adequate spreads. She had a concern regarding the destabilizing of the hillside and bringing the large trees up there. She did not feel it was appropriate to require the Kerns to make the house completely invisible at the onset. They are looking for an effective and substantial screening plan. She did agree that the Hirsch's are greatly impacted by the retaining wall, requesting the shrubs to be 3-4 feet in height. Commissioner Cottrell concurred. He felt the Kerns needed to make peace with the neighbors. The Bay Laurel trees are a good solution, perhaps three or four, whatever it takes in the needed location. The retaining wall is an issue and needs to be addressed with plantings that would cover anywhere from 50% to 75% at the onset. Chairman Clow also concurred. The 75% coverage of the retaining walls is appropriate. He also agreed that the trees should be larger not smaller. The Bay Laurels are a very good idea as they will grow quickly and can be trimmed easily. Commissioner Vitu stated that she did not want to condition the 60" box trees necessarily as they are trying to avoid the destabilization on the hillside and they are looking for an alternative that will provide the same screening but will be less disruptive to the hillside. Commissioner Mordo suggested approval of the plan as a baseline unless the geotechnical engineer decides that a particular location is not advisable to use the 60" box tree, to find an alternative equally screening or equivalent approach. MOTION SECONDED AND PASSED: Motion by Commissioner Mordo and seconded by Commissioner Cottrell to approve the Site Development Permit for a landscape screening plan, Lands of Kerns, 11888 Francemom Drive, subject to the recommended conditions of approval with the following modifications: (])The tree height and canopy width of each required tree shall meet or exceed the corresponding nursery catalog specifications on page 2 of the Planning Commission staff report. The applicant may submit an alternate landscape plan to the Planning Department that provides equivalent screening. Any alternative plan submitted must include documentation indicting that the screening plan is acceptable to residents within 500 -feet of the property. (2)The applicant shall revise the landscape plan and install landscaping that shall immediately screen at least 75% of the visible surface area of the driveway retaining walls. Pathway easements including those adjacent to retaining walls, which have not been vacated by the City Council, shall not be blocked with landscaping or otherwise obstructed. (3) Change "March 1, 2004" to "April 1, 2004". (4) The exterior lighting plan is not approved. All light fixtures on the north and east sides of the residence and the driveway light fixtures shall be low wattage, down shielded and not visible from offsite. The applicant shall work with neighbors to ensure that the proposed lighting is not obtrusive. The applicant shall submit the final lighting plan to the Planning Department within 45 -days from the date of the January 22 Planning Commission hearing. The proposed lighting plan is subject to Planning Commission review and approval if the applicant and neighbors are unable to agree upon a satisfactory lighting plan. 4. AYES: Chairman Clow, Commissioners Vitu, Mordo &Cottrell NOES: None 4 Planning Commission Minutes January 22, 2004 Page 10 This approval is subject to a 23 day appeal period. Approved 2/12/04 3.2 LANDS OF KEARNS, 11261 Magdalena Road (171 -03 -TM -ND -GD); A request for approval of a two lot subdivision of 2.32 acres, and proposed mitigated Negative Declaration. (staff -Debbie Pedro) Staff introduced this item by reviewing the staff report. OPENED PUBLIC HEARING Mark Helton, Giuliani & Kull, project engineer, reviewed the subdivision, commenting on drainage flow. Bruce Worster, 11271 Magdalena Avenue, adjacent property owner, had no objections to the subdivision as presented. They have a flag lot with a driveway that runs along the north side of the property then turns up the hill. They are currently building a new home. They have a view directly down onto the lower lot. He asked to be able to screen the area appropriately with trees between the two properties. There is a group of redwoods at the north west comer currently. When they attempted to put additional screening trees along the driveway before they knew there was going to be a subdivision or another house there, they were denied due to a policy stating f trees shall not be planted in a right of way easement. He requested an exception. He would like ` trees to be planted on both sides. The Planning Director stated plantings are not required with a subdivision approval (unrelated to project). Landscaping on the Kearns property will be addressed at the time of Site Development of a new residence. Mr. Worster noted that there were trees on his original plan but they were told by staff to remove them. It was determined that Mr. Worster's request was unrelated to this application and was directed to work with the Planning Director regarding his request for planting additional trees. Sandy Humphries, Environmental Design Committee, asked for a conservation easement to be placed over the drainage swale to prevent non natives from being planted there. The Planning Director responded that at the time of Site Development, wording regarding the use of native plantings only could be added to the conditions of approval. Mrs. Kearns, 11261 Magdalena Road, applicant and formerly a landscape architect, stated she would like to assure everyone that only native planting materials would be used. Mr. Kearns stated that in subdividing they had originally planned to sell one parcel. They have now decided to maintain control over both of the parcels by developing the parcel themselves and eventually moving into the new house and sell the other one so they can make sure that the house that is built there is appropriate for the site and the architecture fits into Los Altos Hills. He stated that they were also very concerned with screening and felt he and his neighbor could work together. Planning Commission Minutes January 22, 2004 Page 11 CLOSED PUBLIC HEARING Discussion ensued with all Commissioners voicing support of the project. Approved 2/12/04 MOTION SECONDED AND PASSED: Motion by Commissioner Cottrell and seconded by Commissioner Kerns to recommend to the City Council approval of a two lot subdivision subject to the conditions in Attachment 1, including adoption of the Mitigated negative Declaration, Lands of Kearns, 11261 Magdalena Road. AYES: Chairman Clow, Commissioners Kerns, Mordo, Vita & Cottrell NOES: None This item will be scheduled for a City Council public hearing agenda. 4. OLD BUSINESS 4.1 Report from subcommittees 5. NEW BUSINESS -none 4 6. REPORT FROM THE CITY COUNCIL MEETING 6.1 Planning Commission Representative for January 15t4 -Commissioner Vitu, reported on the following: discussion of financing vehicle for new Town Hall; visit to China to explore business opportunities; appointment of prospective member to the Environmental Design Committee; adoption of an Amendment to the Town of Los Altos Hills General Plan Housing Element; vacate existing pathway elements #1, 2, 3, 4 and offer to dedicate two new pathway easements, Lands of Kerns; and appeal of the Planning Commission's approval of a Site Development Permit, Lands of Lo. 6.2 Planning Commission Representative for February 5th -Commissioner Clow 6.3 Planning Commission Representative for February 191h —Commissioner Cottrell 6.4 Planning Commission Representative for March 4'h —Commissioner Kerns APPROVAL OF MINUTES 7.1 Approval of January 8, 2004 minutes MOTION SECONDED AND PASSED BY CONSENSUS: Motion by Commissioner Cottrell, seconded by Commissioner Mordo and passed by consensus to approve the January 8, 2004 minutes. fW 8. REPORT FROM FAST TRACK MEETING -none Planning Commission Minutes January 22, 2004 Page 12 far 9. REPORT FROM SITE DEVELOPMENT MEETING -none The meeting was adjourned by consensus at 9:47 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Lam -Smith / Planning Secretary F, 19 L 4 Approved 2/12/04