HomeMy WebLinkAbout04/23/1986PLANNING OCMISSICN
TOWN OF LOS ALTOS HILLS
26379 Fremont Road
Los Altos Hills, California
Wednesday, April 23, 1986
Reel 121, Side II, Tract I, 000 -End
Chaiunan Carico called the meeting to order at 7:40 p.m. in the Town Hall
Council Chaxrbers.
A. ROIL CALL AND PLEDGE CP AIIEGIANCE•
Present: Gottlieb, rarhenhr,eh, Struthers, Yanez (arrived 7:55) and Chairman
Carico
Absent: Camdssioners Kaufman and Siegel
Staff: George Scarborough, City Manager; Michael W. Enright, City Engineer;
Nancy Lytle, Town Planner; Leslie Mullins, Secretary , Lori Scott,
Planning Consultant; Bill Ekern, Engineering Technician
B. CONSENT CALENDAR:
MC1rICN SECCNDED AND CARRIED: Moved by Struthers, seconded by Iactenbruch and
passed unanimously to approve the Consent Calendar, specifically:
1. Approval of Minutes: March 26, 1986 and April 9, 1986
2, Setting Public Hearings for May 14, 1986:
a, Lands of Borrall, File #CUP 1-86, Conditional Use Permit, Secondary Unit
b. Lands of Prodromou, File #CUP 8-85, Conditional Use Permit, Secondary
Unit
c, lands of Ow1wood Faxms, File #CCP 8007-75, Continuation of Conditional
Use Permit Annual Review
d. Lands of Wang, 13456 Mandoli Drive, Continuation of Site Development
Appeal - Satellite Dish Antenna for review of Landscape Plan
e. Preliminary Review of Lands of Bellucci, File #TM 1-86, Tentative Map
f. Preliminary Review of Variance request for John R. Demeter, 26026
Scarff Way
C. REPORT FROM CITY COUNCIL MEEPING OF APRIL 16, 1986:
Cummissioner Lachenbruch reported the City Council approved the first reading of
the antenna ordinance; held discussion over sign ordinance, directed to be revised
by City Attorney and return for re -consideration; held discussion over nuisance
problem on Carillo Lane, to explore adopting a nuisance ordinance.
Chairman. Carioo noted that she, Dr. Perkins and Michael Stewart had worked on
something similar to this in the past.
m••�
planning Comnission Minutes - April 23, 1986
Page Tmo
E. OLD BUSINESS:
p( 1. commissioner Struthers reported on the joint meeting with LOs Altos,
�r Planning Commissioners Formmm on Thursday, May 22nd at the Hillview
Oamunity Center, noting one item of discussion will be design review
and what other communities are doing with this regard. Struthers
indicated Ms. Lytle will be a speaker as well as someone from Los Altos,
and Palo Alto Architectural Review Board.
F. NEW BUSINESS:
1. March 31, 1986 letter from Marcia Accola, 27461 Sherlock Iniad, and
Preliminary Review of the Site Development Permit and Special Land
Use Permit recommendation to City Council for proposed New Residence
Ms. Lytle referred to her staff report dated April 17, 1986 giving Commission
a history of the Accola's application and their proposal. Ms. Lytle noted
Accola's are asking Commission for decisions on: 1) Road Right -of -Way for
Sherlock Road and Toyon Road, (i.e., requirement of dedication of right-of-
way to 60' for both roads; and how it would be required, from centerline on
Sherlock or can it be shifted to accomodate the preferred building site?);
and 2) does the proposal meet the intent of the Site Development and Urgency
Ordinances? Ms. Lytle noted the Accola's believe that they can "trim" the
proposed structure to meet the Ordinance and guidelines, so long as they are
not required to make road right-of-way dedications.
camussioners questioned which formula the Council is currently using for
Urgency Ordinance review. Staff responded Formula 2 is currently used.
`kw Commission and staff discussed NIDA, Building Coverage and MFA with regard
to dedication of road right-of-way and without road right-of-way, noting
the importance of requiring the applicant to have the property surveyed
and parcel map filed to accurately review this proposal.
The Public Hearing was then opened.
Mr. Accola, 27461 Sherlock Road, thanked Commission for the opportunity to
come before then for preliminary review of their proposed residence, noting
they have resided in Los Altos Hills for 6 years and have dealt with the
problem of the the private road for 5 years, noting they are concerned as
the ordinances keep changing and have not been able to keep up with the
changes so the proposal does not now meet all the guidelines and ordinances.
Mr. Accola questioned the need for the rightrof-way dedication on both roads.
Mr. Accola informed Commission the residence will be well screened by
existing trees.
Mr. Peter Wright Shaw, iaidscape Architect, informed Commission the Table
presented in the Staff Report shows much higher figures than that we are
proposing, noting we are now under the allowed without the road dedication.
Mr. Don Spencer, 27490. Sherlock Road, informed Commission that Toyon Iniad
appeared on a map in the 1920's and 30's, noting the road has never been
used as a roadway, but a drainage Swale. Mr. Spencer noted the roadways
y, shown on the proposed plans are incorrect.
Mr. Matt Boissevain, 27181 Sherlock Read, noted the houses in this area
are about 2,000 sq.ft. and disappear into the trees, noting the importance
of the ridge remaining as it is.
planning Comnissim Minutes - April 23, 1986
Page Three
F. NEW BUSINESS:
1. Lands of Accola (continued)
Mr. Irvin Haas, Building Designer, informed Cwrmissicn the Accola's have
5 acres, and located at the and of the mad, noting they have been very
careful and sensitive to the existing growth on the site and feel the
proposed structure is conipatible with site and those properties around then.
Mr. Peter Shaw, indicated that an expert has looked at the oak trees, and
they are to remain, noting the house has been designed around them.
Mrs. Lee Patmore, 27650 central Drive, informed Camuissim she lives across
the canyon and views Sherlock Road, noting she has been appointed to the
Environmental Design camuittee and has been spending tine in the Site Develop -
rent meetings lately, noting that approval of this proposal will be setting
a precedent, asking Crennission to be very careful with this review, as
Sherlock Road is very unique and beautiful.
The Public Hearing was then closed.
Mr. Scarborough suggested the cm ssion give the Acmla's a consensus m
their proposal with regard to road right-of-way and conformance with ordinances
and guidelines, or give individual opinions.
Cafnissioner Gottlieb indicated she would require the right-of-way (601) for
Sherlock Read, and perhaps 10' for Toyon Road for trail and/or emergency access,
h7 ever noting the proposal is not in keeping with the existing neighborhood
Y. as it would have a major impact on the main roadway and neighbors below.
%W Gottlieb expressed concern over drainage and construction vehicle access.
Commissioner Lachenbruch indicated he would require 60' right-of-way for
Sherlock Road and 10' for Toyon, looking into emergency access roads shown
m the area plan dated 1970 prepared by Spangle & Associates: With regard
to how the bulk should be limited, Lachenbruch noted structure is considered
under the existing formulas now in place, and how the structure fits in with
surroundincrs.notirlycareful attention should be given to screening from all
vantage points to break up the wing of the house which faces Elephant Mountain
(Duveneck property). Iachenbruch expressed concern over telling people the
style of residence to have, referring to Urgency Ordinance 5c iii, he noted
if the.structures does not intrude visually, if they have enough land and
does not intrude on any me else, they should be able to have it.
Connissimer yanez indicated that since Toym road is a paper road, it should
not be required to dedicate the rightbf-way, further noting that Sherlock
road right-of-way renders the site, and places difficult constraints on the
site, with more cutting and possible removal of trees., noting the applicant
seems to have taken careful attention towards not removing trees, although
the neighborhood is very rural in nature, it does not seem correct to require
the Acoolas to build a rural home.
Commissioner Struthers noted it is important to keep the right-of-way for
Sherlock Road, and as previously suggested to have 10' for Toym Road for
1, use as trail and/or emergency access. Struthers expressed concerns of
the impact a structure of this size will have on the existing neighborhood,
also the trucks, carpenters, etc., noting it will be a very big inpact
and we should look into limits on the construction hours.
Planning Cmdssion Minutes - April 23, 1986
Page Four
F. NEW BUSINESS:
1. Lands of Accola (continued)
Chairman Carico indicated she would recommend requiring the 60' right-of-way
for Sherlock Road and 10' for Toyon Road. Carico noted Ms. Lytle's letter
of April 16, 1986 reflects the Town's requiraents regarding the Urgency
Ordinance, noting she world hope Accola's take into oons1deration the style,
type and size of the proposed structure and the existing homes within the
area.
Commissioner Struthers requested the next submittal include drainage, conserva-
tion easements, etc.
G. STUDY SESSION:
1. Review, of newly adopted Site Development Drdinance and procedures for
Site Development Committee Meetings
Ms. Scott referred to her staff report dated April 4, 1986, noting with adoption
of the Site Development ordinance in December, it is time to reevaluate the
Site Development meetings as there is an increase in the amount of authority, i.e.,
pathway requirement, road right-of-way and drainage easement dedications;
siting and preservation of ridgelines and views; and removal of Site Approval
process which previously went through Commission and council review. Ms. Scott
gave Commission suggestions to help achieve decision making which is fair,
consistent, and in line with the authority of the ordinance: 1) fomel.ize
meetings; 2) use Site Development Checklist - revolve meeting around it; 3)
Record the meetings; 4) Use of advisory members, on issues relating to their
specific comni.ttee's charge; and 5) do not base approval on application as
to whether it meets the zoning ordinances, as the item would not be scheduled
unless it has received Zoning Approval, noting it necessary to focus on Site
Development issues.
Camussioners expressed the need for referral to the zoning information,
noting it is very helpful and should be included into the packet if possible,
further noting the importance of the Planner's presence at Site Development
with items needing a Special Land Use Permit.
Mr. Bill Lee, Architect, 271 Floresta Way, Menlo Park, expressed the need for
Camdssion to rely on their Planning Director and Engineer as they are the
experts, noting it is good to include an architect into the meetings as well
as a Lawyer.
commissioners agreed to holding the meetings in the Council Chambers; using
the Site Development Checklist; need for staff metros for resulanittals; and
the Planner's attendance at meeting for Special land Use Permits.
Commissioners noted to agendize for further discussion fees and penalties.
2. Zoning Ordinance Amendments - Design Peview Process
Ms. Scott referred to her staff report dated April 101 1986' indicating Town
Staff and she feel the Town is not ready for Design Review at this time, and
feel the need to get the zoning ordinances implemented, once they are in
place we will be able to clearly look at how the zoning ordinances and site
development ordinance are working together to achieve our goals, thereby
keeping design review on the back burner for the time being. Ms. Scott noted
Planning Commission Minutes - April 23, 1986
Page Five
G. STUDY SESSION:
2. Zoning Ordinance Amendments - Continued
it would be a good idea to have an advisory member (architect) on the
Committee, hopefully someone from the community, noting the language in
the ordinance would need to be amended to accrnndate this. Ms. Scott
indicated the Planner has already initiated prelim;nary reviews of those
applications which, appear to have major design problems, and the use of
a pamphlet outlining design principles which are acceptable to the Tarn.
Commission and staff discussed what the architect would use for his review,
feeling it would be beneficial to the committee and applicant.
MMON SECONDED AND CARRIED: Moved by Struthers, seconded by Gottlieb
and passed unanimously to inform City Council we should not proceed with
Design Review at this time, to wait for zoning amendments and site develop-
ment ordinance outcome. With regard to Zoning Ordinance amendments, the
Commission recommends to City Council to lower height limitation to 27',
30' for chimneys; keep in current requirement of lowest to highest, 35';
keep the building envelope at 15'. Commission suggested staff prepare
a packet to meet the Tom's objectives.
There being no further new or old business, the meeting was adjourned at
11:00 P.M.
Respectfully submitted,
Leslie Mullins
Engineering/Planning