HomeMy WebLinkAbout03/28/1979 (2)PLANNING COMMISSION
%W Town of Los Altos Hills
26379 Fremont Road
Los Altos Hills, California
MINUTES OF A REGULAR MEETING
Wednesday, March 28, 1979
Reel 77, Side 2, Tr. 1 , 480 to End, Side 1 , Tr. 2, 001 to 334
Chairman Stewart called the meeting of the Planning Commission to order at
7:45 p.m. in the Council Chambers of the Town Hall.
ROLL CALL:
Present: Commissioners Carico, Rydell, vanTamelen, Dochnahl, Kuranoff, Stewart
Absent: Commissioner Lachenbruch (excused)
Also Present: City Engineer/Planner John Carlson, Secretary Ethel Hopkins
APPROVAL OF MINUTES:
Chairman Stewart requested that the following corrections be made in the Minutes
of the March 14th meeting: Change item #1 on page three, Lands of Hillestad motion
from "to Moody Road" to 'across Moody Road.' Capitalize "...1building site apprval..."
at the end of the third line of the paragraph on page three beginning "Mr. Carlson...".
ar Change "..Lands of Horton BSA—" in the fourth line of the paragraph beginning
"Extensive discussion..." to 'Lands of Hillestad BSA'.
MOTION SECONDED AND APPROVED UNANIMOUSLY: It was moved by Chairman Stewart and
seconded by Commissioner vanTamelen to approve the Minutes of March 14 as amended.
PUBLIC HEARINGS:
1. 1111CI81 P�IA INE FORtTHREE FORKS LANE, SOUTH FORK LANE AND ARROYO WAY,
6�t f6 N �
TFequ Recorame 1011 Or ApPyUVd1 V1 ilegatve Declaration and Official
Plan Line
MOTION SECONDED AND PASSED UNANIMOUSLY: It was moved by Chairman Stewart and
seconded by Coninissioner Rydell to continue the public hearing on the "Official
Plan Line for Three Forks Lane, South Fork Lane and Arroyo Way" until all residents
within five hundred feet of the designated areashad been notified, including the
owners of the Country Way and Crist Subdivisions.
Commissioners asked that at the next Planning Commission meeting the following
matters be defined: 1) the location of the proposed Arroyo Way, 2) that the term
"official plan line" be defined, and 3) How can the city take the right-of-way
away from people living on a private road?
2. LANDS OF CONN, File #TM 2097-79, West Sunset Drive, John Riley, Engineer,
2 Lots, Request for —Recomendation of Approval of Negative Declaration and
Tentative Map
Staff and Planning Commission discussion on the subject request began with
Chairman Stewart acknowledging receipt of letters and photooraphs from both
property owners and neighbors renarding the propoted pathway. Mr. Carlson
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES - March 28, 1979
Page two
PUBLIC HEARINGS: (continued)
2. LANDS OF CONN, File #TM 2097-79: (continued)
recommended that the Negative Declaration be considered and recommended for
approval.
MOTION SECONDED AND UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED: it was moved by Commissioner Rydell
and seconded by Commissioner vanTamelen to recommend for approval the Negative
Declaration for the Lands of Conn, File #TM 2097-79.
Mr. Carlson continued with a review of the background of the subdivision request,
as detailed in his staff report of March 28. He drew particular attention to
errors in the staff report: 1) West Sunset Drive is a private road - and conditions
must be changed to reflect this; 2) Fees should be changed - i.e., road -in -lieu
fees should be confined to Robleda Road since West Sunset is a private road;
3) If a path is to be constructed, path-in-liEufees should be deleted. It was
pointed out that the grading already done on the propoerty was for fire trails
through the property.
Commission discussion centered on the need for slope density calculations for
the whole subdivision rather than for each separate lot, the irregular line of
the lot division, the need to provide for a well to be abandoned, the lack of
a rnap illustrating pathway requests, the need to show the drainfield on Lot 2,
profiles and cross-section of areas to be cut and filled, trees to be removed,
and drainage disposal and whether sewers were available to the area. Thereafter
4W the hearing was opene� to the public discussion.
Russell Wes
N I Sunset Drive, spoke against the pathway request,
st
noting tFjt the alrea',L etp a'.. "� . ........ for a path, that West Sunset Drive
is a private road, and that security was a real problem in the area.
,�ruman, �113220 Robleda R.oadd� spoke against the proposed pathway as an invasion
qprllritv
Dro e . a
of privacy, a security pro em, and a nuisance problem.
Other neighbors and residents speaking against the pathway proposai were:
PAPnId lindsay. 13151 West Sunset Drive, Colleen Boy d, 1 330 Robleda9 Debbie Trumanz
Jean Struthers, Pathway 1,o�t
Inige for the pathway request, discussed path
fi �' spoke 'pedestrian only' path.
connections, and noted t request was for a
John Riley, ln?inoe,� lrl Los Altos, described the location of the
T_
rajnf,�la oF t vementb Within 300 feet of the subdivision,
A�sc!Rssed MPOt'
the driveway Profile, noted that field surveys were the source of the map contours,
discussed the reason for the unusual lot line between the two lots requested that
the soils report be required before obtaining the building permit �or the new lot
rather than before the'final map, that the buyer's responsibility and the developer's
responsibility be clearly delineated on Conditions 7A and 7B, and finally, that the
storm drainage fund be charged only for the newly developed lot rather than for two
lots.
�w Commissioners concluded discussion. The public hearing was closed, and the following
motions passed:
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES - March 28, 1979
Page three
kw PUBLIC HEARINGS: (continued)
2. LANDS OF CONN, File #TM 2097-79: (continued)
Condition 1.3: PASSED BY CONSENSUS: To amend Condition 1.B to read: The Owner
snail dedicate a minimum of twenty feet (20') from the centerline
of the riqht-of-way along West Sunset Drive for private road purposes.
Condition I.C: MOTION SECONDED AND PASSED UNANIMOUSLY: It was moved by Commissioner
Carico ano seconded by Commissioner Kuranoff to delete Condition I.C.
Various Commissioners commented on the reason for the deletion of
the pathway request. These reasons are listed below, and are to
accompany the revised list of conditions under "Comments from the
Commission" when the recommendation of the Planning Commission
is sent to the City Council.
Commissioner Kuranoff stated that the reason for the deletion of
Condition 1.0 was a combination of safety factors, invasion of
privacy on the Truman property, and the steepness of the road.
Commissioner Carico noted that there were other paths that will
accommodate pedestrian traffic, and that the path would end in a
very dangerous spot on Robleda Road.
Commissioner vanTamelen noted that her concern was the turn -out
of all the neighbors and that all the neighbors had objected to the path
Chairman Stewart noted that the proposed path would be along a
public road to private road.
Condition 2.0 PASSED BY CONSENSUS: To add as Condition 2.0 under "Ordinance
Conditions": A Type II foundation shall be required for the
residence on Lot 1. (Subsequent conditions shall be renumbered
as Conditions 2.D, 2.E, and 2.F.)
Condition 4.D PASSED By CONSENSUS: It was moved by Chairman Stewart and the
consensus that the following be added as Condition 4.D: The well
on Lot I shall be abandoned and filled according to Santa Clara
Valley Water District standards.
Condition 8.A MOTION SECONDED AND CARRIED: It was moved by Chairman Stewart,
secuFlueu Dy Commissioner Dochnahl� and carried that Condition 8.A
be deleted.
Vote: AYES: Commissioners Carico, Rydell, Dochnahl, Kuranoff and
Stewart
NOES: None
ABSTAIN: Commissioner vanTamelen
Condition 8.B: MOTION SECONDED AND PASSED UNANIMOUSLY: It was moved by Chairman
Stewart and seconded by Commissioner Dochnahl to delete Condition 8.B.
Condition 9.C: PASSED BY CONSENSUS: To amend Condition 9.0 to read: The net
acreage OT Lot 1 shall be increased to 2.07 acres, exclusive of
11b, the street right-of-way. The tentative map shall be corrected to
show this.
46W
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES - March 28, 1979
Page four
PUBLIC HEARINGS: (continued)
2. LANDS OF CONN, File #TM 2097-79: (continued)
Condition 9.D: MOTION SECONDED AND PASSED UNANIMOUSLY: It was moved by Chairman
Stewart and seconded by Commissioner vanTanelen to add as a condition:
The developer's engineer shall provide a profile and cross-section
of the proposed driveway on the tentative lot design plan. No
grade of the proposed driveway shall be over 15%. The driveway
profile and cross-section shall be reviewed to check the grade
when the plan is received.
Condition 9.E: MOTION SECONDED AND PASSED UNANIMOUSLY: It was moved by Chairman
�Stewart and seconded by Commissioner Rydell to add as a condition:
The tentative lot design and development plan shall be changed to
show the location of the drainfield on Lot 2.
Condition IO.A: No chanqe in fees. Chairman Stewart requested that the City Ennineer
obtain a ruling from the City Attorney on whether storm drainage fees
should be charged only for the new lot being developed in a subdivision.
Condition lO.B: PASSED DY CONSENSUS: To amend the Road -in lieu fee to: 412 Feet
at $3.50 per Foot = $1,442.00 - and Total Fees = $2,712.35.
MOTION SECONDED AND PASSED UNANIMOUSLY: It was moved by Commissioner vanTamelen
and seconded by Commissioner Dochnahl to recommend approval of the Lands of Conn,
File #TM 2097-79, with conditions as amended.
It was noted that the Planning Commission would review the Tentative Lot Design and
Development Plan sheet at the next meeting to determine whether the engineer had
completed the requested changes, i.e., show the driveway on Lot 1 and provide a
driveway profile, change the map to reflect that Lot I contains 2.07 net acres,
and show the drainfield on Lot 2.
At 9:45 a recess was called. The meeting resumed at 10:55 p.m., and it was
decided to handle "New Business" before "Old Business" in order not to delay
Mr. Alhouse longer at the meeting.
NEW BUSINESS:
1. LANDS OF ALHOUSE, File #BSA 6110-78, Manuella and Scarff way, Request for
Tecommendation �ofApproval to move a House and water Tower Onto the Above
Property
Mr. Carlson discussed the applicant's proposal as detailed in the applicant's
letter of March 15, and the accompanying referral to the Planning Commission
by the City Council. Mr. Carlson noted the need to obtain a legal interpretation
of Municipal Code requirements for the moving of buildings from one lot to another
in the Town. A short discussion among Commissioners followed, and the hearing was
opened to the public.
Willia 116 liublar Irive,, Pa 0 11no, discussed his proposal with
'lh2 r�qu�si d R � fi _ 16462 dpprUVdi U1 the request.
ro—mmisTsi6n�rVeAd' t�a rk
MOTION SECONDED AND PASSED UNANIMOUSLY: It was moved by Chairman Stewart and
seconded by Commissioner Dochnahl to recommend approval of the request for a
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES - March 28, 1979
Page five
NEW BUSINESS: (continued)
1. LANDS OF ALHOUSE, File #BSA 6110-78: (continued)
house moving permit for the Lands of Alhouse, File #BSA 6110-78, with the
following statements and conditions to be sent to the City Council:
The Planning Commission, at its meeting of March 28, 1979, recommended
that the necessary permit or permits be granted to William and Barbara
Alhouse to move the house and/or water tower from the Troedson Subdivision
pursuant to Section 8-5.03 of the Los Altos Hills Municipal Code. Moving
of these structures will be in the best interest of the Town and applicant
due to the "historic interest" designation of these structures. The moving
of such small structures should present no unreasonable risk to the public
health, safety, and welfare of the Town's residents.
The Planning Commission further recommends that the necessary permit or permits
required to move the structure or structures onto the Lands of Alhouse pursuant
to Section 9-5.308 be granted.
The following additional conditions were recommended for the granting of the
permit or permits to move the structures:
1. Even though the main water tower exceeds thirty feet (30') in height,
because it is an existing structure and of historical interest, a
conditional exception to Section 9-5.503 of the Municipal Code shall
�w be granted.
2. The location of the structures on the Alhouse property shall be
approved by the Site Development Committee.
3. The foundations for the structure or structures shall be Type Il
if the slope where the foundations are located is over 14%.
4. The City Engineer shall require a bond to assure that the buildings
will be brought up to code requirements and completed within six
months of the qranting of the permits.
2. Settinq of Dates for Public Hearings for the Variance and Permit and Planning
MOTIO I N SECON . DE . 0 - AND . PASSED'UNANIAOUSLY: It was moved by Chairman Stewart and seconded
by Commissioner Carico toset the public hearings for the following items of
business for the Variance and Permit Commission: Lands of Jaiswal, File #VAR.7057-79
(continued to the meeting of April 11 at the request of the applicant); Lands of
Oliver, File #VAR. 7047-77; Planning Commission public hearings for the April 11
meeting: Lands of Hom, File #TM 2084-78. It was noted that the Official Plan
Line for Arroyo Way, Three Forks and South Fork Lane would also be heard at the
April 11 meeting.
OLD BUSINESS:
1. LANDS OF STAMSCHROR-SILVE% ile N29-78, 25231 LaRena Lane (Secondary
- E6 Re UeF
Dwelling), Response S, forCIn fo rmaLlon on reurudry 28:
It was the decision of the Commissioners to continue this matter to the next
meeting when a copy of the police report on an arrest of four juveniles at the
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES - March 28, 1979
Page six
%W OLD BUSINESS: (continued)
1. LANDS OF STAMSCHROR-SILVER, File #CU 8029-78: (continued)
secondary dwelling would be available for review. Concern was expressed by
Commissioners that conditions of the use permit be thoroughly enforced in order
to avoid the return of the problem the property has been to the neighborhood
over the years.
2. Revisi
f2q 2f PmeRseg 'R hting Ordinance: Commissioner Carico read the following
co or lncluslo� in i e record; All outdoor lighting should be judged on
an individual basis. Each outdoor lighting impact should be mitigated as to have
no adverse effect on any neiqhboring property.
No further discussion on the above item occurred. The matter was continued to
the meeting of April 11.
3. sioner vanTamelen reported on City Council
actions ta en a the meeting of March 21, the main action being that the Council
would request Variance and Permit Commission justification for each individual
item of the six conditions for granting a variance, i.e., this justification was
not only being required of the applicant, but was also being requested to be sent
in a report and addressed by the Commissioners themselves when the Commission
recommendation is sent to the City Council. Commissioner vanTamelen concluded
her report by asking that the "Report from the City Council" be included as a
regular part of the Planning Commission agenda.
ADJOURNMENT:
There being no further new or old business, the meeting of the Planning Commission
was adjourned by Chairman Stewart at 11:23 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Ethel Hopkins
Secretary
taw