Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout11/28/1979PLANNING COMMISSION Town of Los Altos Hills 26379 Fremont Road Los Altos Hills, California MINUTES OF A REGULAR MEETING Wednesday, November 28, 1979 Reel 82, Side 1, Tr. 2, 432 to End; Side 2, Tr. 2 001 to 120 Acting Chairman Dochnahl called the meeting to order in the Council Chambers of the Town Hall at 7:47 p.m. ROLL CALL: Present: Commissioners Lachenbruch, Rydell, Stewart, Dochnahl, Kuranoff. Commissioner Carico arrived at 7:55 p.m. Absent: Commissioner vanTamelen Also Present: City Planner/Engineer John Carlson, Secretary Ethel Hopkins CONSENT CALENDAR: Commissioner Stewart asked that all items on the Consent Calendar be considered separately. He then read as a correction to the Minutes of November 1.4 the following: Page 5, line 4 of the motion on Lands of Stamschror-Silver, the sentence reading "To 40 comply..." should be corrected to read: 'To comply, Planning Commissioners feel that...' (the rest of the sentence remains as written). MOTION SECONDED AND APPROVED UNANIMOUSLY: It was moved by Commissioner Stewart and seconded by Commissioner Kuranoff that the Minutes of November 14 be approved as amended. MOTION SECONDED AND APPROVED UNANIMOUSLY: It was moved by Commissioner Stewart and seconded by Commissioner Rydell to set the public hearing for December 12 for LANDS OF MANUEL, File #TM 2101-79. Paul Nowack, 127 Second Street, Engineer for the Lands of Manuel, discussed with Commissioners the date and time for a field trip for Lands of Manuel and the Lands of the Palo Alto School District. It was determined that the field trip would occur at 9:00 A.M. on Sunday, December 9. Commissioners would meet the engineer at where Natoma Road comes in at Elena. Commissioner Stewart asked that the Planning Secretary call all Commissioners to remind them of the December 9th field trip. MOTION SECONDED AND APPROVED UNANIMOUSLY: It was moved by Commissioner Stewart and seconded by Commissioner Kuranoff to set the following additional items for the public hearing on December 12: Variance and Permit Commission Hearing: Lands of Bjorklund, File #VAR.7064-79; Planning Commission: Lands of Riggen, File #TM 2095-79. PUBLIC HEARINGS: 1. LANDS OF HORTON, File #TM 2066-77, Altamont Road, Sandis & Associates, Inc., Engineers, L Request for Recommendation of Approval of Tentative Map (referred back to Planning i� Commission by City Council), 6 Lots Commissioner Stewart requested that Acting Chairman Dochnahl discuss the City Engineer's recommendation to request a continuance of the Lands of Horton with the Engineer, Mr. Sandis. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES - Page two November 28, 1979 4W PUBLIC HEARINGS: (continued) 1. LANDS OF HORTON, File #TM 2066-77: (continued) Tim Sandis, Sandis & Associates, 812 Castro Street, Mountain View, referred to the ity ngineer s November14thetter an proteste t e further delay as unfair treatment. He stated that he had complied with Town requests and asked that the Planning Commission consider the Tentative Map for the Lands of Horton and send it back to the City Council. Commissioners discussed their unpreparedness to deal with the Tentative Map in light of the City Engineer's November 23rd recommendation and then passed the following motion: MOTION SECONDED AND CARRIED: It was moved by Commissioner Stewart and seconded by Commissioner Lachenbruch to continue discussion on Lands of Horton, File #TM 2066-77. Continuance was with the consent of the applicant and the applicant's engineer. AYES: Commissioners Lachenbruch, Rydell, Stewart, Dochnahl, Kuranoff NOES: Commissioner Carico ABSTAIN: None 2. LANDS OF PHILBRICK, File #TM 2102-79, Westwind Way, John Riley, Engineer, Request for Recommendation of p p , oval of Negative Declaration and Tentative Map, 8 Lots: The public hearing was opened and closed for the consideration of the Negative Declara- tion with no one addressing the matter either for or against it. MOTION SECONDED AND UNANIMOUSLY CARRIED: It was moved by Commissioner Stewart and 40 seconded by Commissioner Carico to recommend approval of the Negative Declaration. Mr. Carlson continued the discussion of the Tentative Map, reviewing the map's de- ficiencies as outlined in his staff report of November 28. Specific items referred to were the visibility of the proposed lots, the layout of the lots, slope density, and the possible elimination of Lot 1 of the subdivision. Commissioners raised questions on the status of Streets A and B on the Tentative M, and on the possibility of combining Lots 7 and 8. Thereafter the hearing was opened to the public discussion. John Riley, 66 Third Street, Los Altos, noted that Lot 7 was presented as a separate lot in the subdivision and was too small to be subdivided. He noted that if Lots 7 and 8 were combined, it would not be for the purpose of subdividing the land but a desire on the part of the Philbricks to keep the residence as it is at present. He noted that the property had a slope density yield of ten lots, but that only eight were being requested. He stated that it was his feeling that Lot 1 conformed to Town requirements, and noted that the area configuration was caused by the location of the Philbrick home. Thereafter he responded to other questions Commissioners had on the possible re -design of the subdivision that would occur with the elimination of Lot 1, the re-routing of streets, and the potential for further subdivision of Lot 8. Planning Commissioners pointed out their need to explore the issue of the further subdividability of Lot 8 from the long range point of view, discussed the re-routing of driveways that would occur with the elimination of Lot 1, and the potential for 4 re -designing the lot layout of the subdivision. Warren Thoits, Attorney, 525 University Avenue, Palo Alto, noted that no further sub at 49? siderea, nor was t nation of Lots 7 and 8 being considered. He noted that his September 20th letter discussed the retention of Lot 8 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES - Page three 4W November 28, 1979 PUBLIC HEARINGS: (continued) 2. LANDS OF PHILBRICK, File #TM 2102-79: (continued) as a separate lot that would not be subdivided in the future. Paragraph three of that letter provided the legal assurance that this would be accomplished. Commissioner Lachenbruch asked for the City Attorney's opinion on the September 20th letter from Mr. Thoits. He then discussed the merits of the Philbricks coming in with Lots 7 and 8 as designed with a lesser lot yield of five lots for the remaining area as opposed to the six lots now being requested for this area, pointing out that unless the applicant could could prove that Lot 1 was a superior home site as provided for in Section 9-4.604(7), then it was more desirable to delete the lot. — As it _existed, if Lot 1 was to be retained in the subdivision, its development should be limited. Another alternative mentioned was to eliminate the lot line between Lots 7 and 8 and distribute the lot yield more equitably. Commissioner Stewart asked that the Commissioners be sent copies of Mr. Thoits proposal and read the letter for the Commissioners, citing proposals outlined in paragraphs one, two and three for assuring that Lot 8 would not be further subdivised. Various other ways were discussed as means to alleviate the imbalance of the subdivision design. Commissioner Kuranoff stated his concern about Lot 1, first because of the fifty percent yield and then because of the access problem with Lot 3. He noted the difficulty of obtaining four lots on the La Paloma side because of the location of the Philbrick residence and advised against obtaining a roadway access along .the La Paloma side because of the grading involved in creating a roadway. He noted the need for compromise in correcting the problems of subdivision and road design. Attorney Thoits suggested that the subdivision applicant and the City Engineer to work out the (Amended 12/12/79 by the Planning Commission) MOTION SECONDED AND PASSED UNANIMOUSLY: It was seconded by Commissioner Carico to continue the to the meeting of December 12. Continuance was engineer. OLD BUSINESS: re " be continued in order for the problems of subdivision design moved by Commissioner Rydell and Lands of Philbrick, File#TM 2102-79, agreed upon by the applicant and his for �d„aon nuIeu uidL mems i ono c OT cne aDove memo were aireaay Bing accomplished with the present Tentative Map process. However, he had asked for an opinion from the City Attorney on Item 3. Further discussion was postponed until word from the City Attorney had been received. 2. Ordinance�on Im erm�eable Surface Limitation: A brief discussion was held, the intent Of wFic wa' h s to clarify terminology, specifically the difference between the "actual" yield versus the "fractional" yield. CONSENSUS of the Commission was that the intent of Commissioner Lachenbruch's proposed ordinance was most satisfactory, and to authorize L Commissioner Lachenbruch to work out the terminology with Mr. Gillio for a proposed Y new ordinance. NEN BUSINESS: 1. Ordinance #239 and #247 Changes: Commissioners noted that they wanted these changes recommended to the City Council for action. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES - Page four November 28, 1979 NEW BUSINESS: (continued) 2. Letter dated November 15 from Paul Reneau re houses off Page Mill Road opposite the view of Byrd Lane: Commissioners discusses the complaint registerea Dy the above letter and determined that the color of proposed houses could be discussed at the time of Site Development when landscaping was considered. Co ssioner Stewart pointed out that the CC&Rs of sub vision /se d be conditio d to provide that colors of homes be determined at th time of development In`�ytha��t way, by the time the house is repainted lan caping wilve grown u too✓�CP.�some iOC� shielding to the dwelling. No further action was taken on his ADJOURNMENT: There being no further new or old business, the meeting was adjourned by Commissioner Dochnahl at 10:01 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Ethel Hopkins Secretary ***Commissioner Stewart pointed out that the CC&Rs of the subdivision could require that the color of homes in the subdivision be determined at the time of site development, and that these colors could not be changed unless the owner came 40 before site development again. Commissioner Kuranoff observed that as houses were re -painted in approximately five to ten year intervals, by the time that a dwelling needed re -painting, the landscaping would have grown up to hide the dwelling. There- fore, there was no need to condition the color of a dwelling beyong the first painting. No further action was taken on this matter. (Amendment of the Planning Commission - 12/12/79) 4r'