The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About01/31/1979PIR, VING CaMISSION Town of Los Altos Hills 26379 Fremont Road Los Altos Hills, California MIIVUTFS OF AN ADJOURNED =ING Wednesday, January 31, 1979 Reel 76, Side 2, Tr. 1, 752 to End; Side 1, Tr. 2, 001 to 031 Chairman Stewart called the adjourned meeting of the Planning Ccmnission to order at 6:12 p.m. in the Council Chambers of Town Hall. FOLL CALL: Present: Commissioners Lachenbruch, Rydell, Dochnahl and Chairman Stewart Absent: Commissioners Kuranoff, Carico, and vanTamelen Also Present: City Engineer/Planner John A. Carlson, Secretary Ethel Hopkins Chairman Stewart called attention to his January 26 memo on Commission Assign- ments for ReccnTended Action Items, apologizing for the time taken to prepare the assignment list, but also noting that in order to get going on the assignments Commissioners Kuranoff and vanTamelen would need to be available. PUBLIC HEARINGS: 1. LANDS OF LCAT, File #TM 2088-78, Hilltop Drive, Edward Baca, Engineer, Request for Reccnmiendation of Approval of Negative Declaration and Tentative Map, 3 Lots, - Continued frau Meeting of January 24, 1979 Mr. Carlson began the discussion on the subject proposal by recaamending the consideration of the Negative Declaration. Commission discussion centered on whether a Negative Declaration could be recommen- ded in light of the problems of noise impact from Interstate 280 on any residence constructed on Lot 3 and in turn, the visual impact of the Int 3 residence on the highway which is designated as a scenic highway. It was noted, however, by the town engineer that there was some question as to whether these issues should be addressed by the environmental impact study on the parcel or by the staff report; and it was his opinion that these issues should be addressed by the staff report. Thereafter, the public hearing was opened, closed and the following ;ration passed. MOTION SECONDED AND PASSED BY UNANIM)US RDLL CALL VOTE: It was moved by Commission- er Dochnahl and seceded by Camrissioner Rydell to reccmTend a Negative Declaration for the Lands of LOW, File #TM 2088-78. Mr. Carlson continued discussion of the proposed subdivision by reviewing concerns on the location of access to all lots and cut and fill for the driveway to Int 3, pathway requests, seismic hazards and the proximity to the freeway of Lot 3. A short discussion followed regarding the location of driveways and road widths, and the hearing was opened to the public. Preston Law, Applicant, spoke against the pathway requested between Lots 1 and 2 but for the pathway along the southern end of the property near the freeway, and PLANNING CONffSSION MINUTES - January 31, 1979 Page two PUBLIC HEARINGS: (continued) 1. LANDS OF LCW, File #TM 2088-78: (continued) noted that the proposed driveway access to Lots 1 and 2 is extremely safe and has goad sight distance in all directions. of flies from horse traffic, the safety of children on the adjoining property, the invasion of privacy to the Low residence, and the surrounding of the Lodge property by pathways. He noted that the driveway to Lot 3 is in the best possible location to serve Lot 3, and that it would also be a help to the development of the adjacent Lands of Love property. Tan Barton, Builder and Developer for the Lands of Love, 960 N. San Antonio Road, Los Altos, noted that the driveway access to Lot 3 would also benefit the Lands of Love and would have less impact on the area. He recommended that this common driveway development be taken into consideration in recomending approval of the Lands of Icw. Nelson lodge, 12135 Hilltop Drive (present owner of Lands of Powell), spoke against the pathway proposed between Lots 1 and 2, noting that there was danger involved with horse traffic in the area because his three children play in the driveway area, and the requirement for this path would surround his property with pathways on all sides. Mr. tow stated that he would not agree to moving the pathway ten feet further on his property since the danger to the Lodge children would still exist. Jean Struthers, Pathway Committee, pointed to the need to get to the freeway area by some pathway connection from Hilltop Drive, noting that the connection on the Barley Hill Subdivision, while it is preferable because it is not so steep, is only a temporary easement until a more permanent connection can be obtained from the Lands of Loa. Mr. Carlson noted that Condition 9(c) of the Barley Hill Subdivision, Tract #6069, provided a temporary easement until a connection to the freeway pathway could be obtained on the Lands of Loa. Thereafter, the public hearing was closed and discussion returned to the Commission. Various Ca ssioners commented on the proposed development as follows: Cmmission- er Lachenbruch agreed with Mr. Low that a path between lots 1 and 2 was not justified and would be an invasion of privacy; however, he stated that he could not approve of the proposed subdivision if it included Lot 3. Reasons cited were the presence of a fault zone over much of the lot, the fact that the lot does not stand alone under slope density requirements, conflict with the General Plan, and the unsuitability of the site for development. Chairman Stewart noted that another problem with the subdivision was that Lands of love would soon be considered with access combined with access to lot 3; another problem was that the slope of the lot and the nearness to the freeway presented problems for the location of a building site. Cmaissioner Dochnahl pointed to the problem of screening a residence in view of the freeway and conflict with the Scenic Highways Element of the General Plan. PLANNING CODMiISSIGN MINUPES - January 31, 1979 Page three 4W PUBLIC HEARINGS: 1. LANDS OF ICI.a, File #TM 2088-78: (continued) MOTION SEODNDED AND CARRIED: It was moved by Commissioner Rydell, seconded by Commissioner Dod=hl and carried, to recommend denial without prejudice for the Lands of Lav, File #TM 2088-78. Masons given for the re dation were the following: 1. Section 66474 (Government Code Section) of the Subdivision Map Act, subparagraphs (a) which applies if the subdivision map is regarded as a plan for development; (b) and (c), as cited in the City Attorney's letter of December 27, 1977 re "Denial of Final or Tentative Map"; and as also noted in Section 9-4.515 on page 21 of Ordinance 232, subparagraphs (a) , (b) and (c) ; and 2. Conflict with the principles of the Land Use Element of the General Plan, specifically principles 3, 4, 5, and 6 on page 13 of the General Plan. AYES: Commissioners Lachenbruch, Rydell, Dochnahl NOES: Chairman Stewart ABSTAIN: None Mr. Lav was advised by the Planning Commission that he could appeal the recommenda- tion of denial without prejudice to the City Council, or he could care before the fir Planning CMMission with another plan for the subdivision. Mr. Law questioned the Ca issioners on the wisdom of expending funds to detenTdne the location of the fault zone and whether in fact the fault was a potentially active one and was told by the Cmudssioners that he should consult with the Town Geologist Mr. Cotton on this matter. He was also told by the Commissioners that if it were determined that the fault had been improperly designated on the map, they would be glad to have the fault designation removed. Mr. Law also expressed concern that he was being penalized for supposed congestion that would develop if the adjacent Lands of Love were to be developed. /_b?U:I1:7piu�M31lA There being no new or old business to discuss, the meeting of the Planning Commission was adjourned at 7:25 p.m, by Chairman Stewart to a joint meeting with the City Council. Respectfully sulmitted, Ethel Hopkins Secretary