Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout11/26/1986PLANNING COMMISSION TOWN OF LOS ALTOS HILLS 26379 Fremont Road Los Altos Hills, California Wednesday, November 26, 1986 Reel 125, Side II, Tract I, 285 -End; Side I, Tract II, 000 -End; Side II, Tract II, 000-020 Chairman Struthers called the meeting of the Planning Commission to order in the Town Hall Council Chambers at 1:10 P.M. A. ROLL CALL AND PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE: Present: Commissioners Carico, Emling, Kaufman, Patmore, Stutz, Yanez (arrived 1:20p.m.) and Chairman Struthers Absent: None Staff: Michael W. Enright, City Engineer; Nancy Lytle, Town Planner; Leslie Mullins, Secretary City Council Representative: Mayor van Tamelen B. CONSENT CALENDAR: B.1. Removed - November 12, 1986 (Carico, Patmore 6 Struthers) MOTION SECONDED AND CARRIED: Moved by Stutz, seconded by Carico and peassly to approve the remainder of the Consent Calendar, specifically: 1. Minutes of October 22, 1986 2. Setting Public Hearings for December 10, 1986: a. Lands of Babayan, Appeal of Site Development Committee Decision Carico requested the minutes of November 12, 1986, on page six, second to kw last paragraph be amended to include: If the applicant wishes to keep the well; then the applicant should be required to apply to do so through Town Hall. On Page Eight, third paragraph to be amended to include: The Planning Commission had recommended to the City Council that should the Planning Commission Minutes - November 26, 1986 Page Two 4W 'V Bahr... Struthers requested the minutes of November 12, 1986, on page eight, fifth paragraph be amended to include: ... oak trees "in the proposed access". Patmore requested the minutes of November 12, 1986, on page nine, third paragraph be amended to replace the work "taking" with "replacing". MOTION SECONDED AND CARRIED: Moved by Struthers, seconded by Stutz and passed unanimously to approve the Minutes of November 12, 1986 as amended. Commissioner Kaufman abstained from approval, as he was not present on November 12th. REPORT FROM CITY COUNCIL MEETING ON NOVEMBER 19, 1986: Mr. Enright informed Commission, the City Council there were no Planning items and a very light Agenda for the November 19th City Council Meeting, noting the Council discussed the guardrail request at Chapin and Robleda Roads which may be of some interest to Commission. PUBLIC HEARINGS: LANDS OF CURRIE, FILE UTM 3-86, 25545 O'Keefe Lane, APN: 175-48-056, (ACE Consulting Engineers), Request for Approval of Tentative Map for an Eight Lot Subdivision Ms. Lytle referred to Staff Report dated November 20, 1986. informing Commission at the September 24th meeting the Commission considered a nine lot subdivision for this property and recommended that the City Council deny the map based on an inability to make the necessary findings 1, 2, and 3 of Section 9-4.515 (e) of the Municipal Code, due to impacts resulting from noise levels, visual and aesthetic concerns, as well as drainage and sewer concerns. Ms. Lytle informed Commission that on October 8th, the Commission then re -considered their action, at the request of the applicant, in order to allow the applicant to present additional information and to explore alternative designs. Ms. Lytle indicated staff and sub -committee have met to review the latest proposal on November 12, 1986 (with the exception of Commissioner Carico) and have recommended approval of the re -design subject to conditions of approval as recommended by Staff and the Commission attached to the November 20th Staff Report. Ms. Lytle gave Commission a brief project description as well as necessary figures in relation to zoning and subdivision ordinance requirements. Ms. Lytle recommended that the Planning Commission adopt a motion recommending that the City Council approve the Lands of Currie Tentative Map, subject to the Conditions of Approval attached to the November 20th Staff Report. Commissioner Carico informed commissioners that she was not informed of the subcommittee meeting and was not able to attend, indicating that eight lots is still too many lots for this site. Commissioner Kaufman questioned which map should be used to determine the 60DBL7 Staff informed Commissioners the map attached to the Edward L. Pack report is the correct one for review. 4 Planning Cmvdssion Minutes - November 26, 1986 Page Three Mr. Enright referred to Staff Memo dated November 20, 1986 informing Commission that his recommendations have been included into the proposed Conditions of Approval which are attached to the November 20th Staff Report, giving Commission a brief clarification on the recommendations. Commissioners questioned sewer connection capability for the proposed subdivision. Mr. Enright indicated that before the Final Map can be recorded it must be reviewed by myself and approve the Improvement Plans for the entire subdivision, which would include sewer connections for all lots, noting Lot 66 may have some difficulties. The Public Hearing was then opened. Mr. Ron Rainey, 60 South Market Street San Jose, representing applicant, would like to thank staff for all their help as well as the subcommittee members, informing Commission Mr. Edward Pack is present to answer any questions Commission may have regarding the Noise Study, as well as the Engineer and applicant. Mr. Rainey asked for clarification of conditions: 4.A., asking if the Currie's present home would also have to connect to the sanitary sewer? 5.A. and 5.B. asking when the installation would need to occur? Does the Town accept Subdivision Bond for installation of improvements required? 5.E. Condition is much more extensive that was previously requested in the Staff Report, asking for clarification. Mr. Rainey questioned if the tennis court and stable could be made a part of the Subdivision Agreement for removal instead of prior to Final Map recordation? Mr. Enright informed Commission technically the structures will become non -conforming and if the Commission does wish to extend them to be allowed to remain, that they not be allowed to remain any longer than the subdivision improvements. With regard to sewer connections and reimbursement agreement, Mr. Enright indicated this matter is a City Council action, not commission, noting an agreement would need to be prepared by the City Attorney in conjunction with Subdivision Agreement. Mrs. Campbell, 12870 Robleda Road, informed Commission that every lot has noise problems asking if there are any provisions for mitigation for all the proposed lots? how will they be required to be carried out for all lots? will they be effective? and what if the mitigation measures do not work? Commissioner Kaufman informed Commission and Mrs. Campbell that the applicant is proposing a six foot sound wall as well as landscape mitigation. Commissioner Carico expressed concern that a six foot wall will do very little to help mitigate noise from I-280, also referring to the General Plan Noise Element. Chairman Struthers questioned if Commission at the Site Development Committee level will have some powers for siting, etc. of the proposed structures and mitigation? Commissioner Yanez indicated he agrees with Carico that there isn't a lot that can be done to help mitigate the outside noise, but referred to a construction method being used by Tom Barton Construction Company with regard to inside noise levels and window materials, and referred to requirements of the Dawson Subdivision off Magdalena in regard to noise Planning Ccamission Minutes - November 26, 1986 Page Four impacts and mitigation. Commissioner Patmore questioned what would happen if the measurement line is incorrect? Mr. Pack informed Commission he is here to answer any questions they may have with regard to his report and how the readings were taken and from their locations. Mr. Pack indicated the original report was prepared in July, referring to the July 14th report on page nine, noting they have made no new readings since that time and do not feel it necessary to do SO. Mr. Pack indicated the microphone was set up on Lot N7. Mr. Pack informed Commission of the required standards, what the County of Santa Clara requires and proposed mitigation measures, noting a 60DBL does not mean that you will eliminate the noise from the freeway on these lots. Chairman Struthers informed applicant and Commission that she prepared her own study on noise levels earlier in the day, presenting Commission with a map she had prepared showing the high noise level areas, noting the readings taken by Pack were taken behind a bank and does not reflect a true and accurate reading on the subject lots, indicating that the report she feels was cone inadequately as to location of readings and time of readings and not appropriate to the proposed subdivision. Mr. Pack informed Commission the they 'do feel their numbers represent the numbers for this site, referring again to his report of July 14th. Commissioner Kaufman indicated the commission needs to look carefully at the setbacks proposed, as well as the 55DBL, as it could render the entire lot unbuildable, noting we need to have some information before the applicant sets the final lot lines; as well as needing to determine that if there is enough uncertainty with regard to Noise Concerns, that Commission require additional Noise information in the way of a partial EIR. Commissioner Yanez indicated that Commission needs to make a distinction between perceived noise and actual noise levels, and whether or not the study truly represents actual noise levels, asking if we can request a re -design based upon noise. Ms. Lytle informed Commission that the Negative Declaration was previously accepted by the Commission, noting Commission can not at this time require EIR. Mr. Enright indicated this is the last meeting on which Commission can make a decision without an extension from the applicant. Mr. Currie, 25545 O'Keefe Lane, informed Commission that he is appalled at the Commissions review process, (i.e., plan presented at this meeting by Chairman Struthers and the hearing thus far), noting this has been through Staff and Subcommittee with a favorable recommendation to the Planning Commission, asking Commission to please consider approval of the Tentative Map subject to Conditions of Approval as recommended by Staff and Subcommittee. The Public Hearing was then closed. `r MOTION SECONDED AND FAILED: Moved by Kaufman, seconded by Yanez and failed by the following -roll call vote to recommend approval of the Tentative Map for the Lands of Currie, File #TM 3-86 (as recommended by the incomplete subcommittee) subject to Conditions of Approval as Planning Cpgmission Minutes - Nwember 26, 1986 Page Five presented in the November 20th Staff Report and with the addition of a New Condition 1.E., for requirement of fire hydrant installation per Los Altos Fire Protection District, and amending Condition I.D. as follows: The owner shall dedicate a HHBSL to follow the 60DB ldn noise contour line, as measured on each lot subsequent to installation of mitigation measures as described in Condition 5.F. (measures shall be taken on each lot, weekday morning and evening peak hours). ROLL CALL: AYES: Commissioners Kaufman and Yanez NOES: Commissioners Carico, Emling, Patmore, Stutz and Chairman Struthers ABSTAIN: None Carico indicated she voted no because she this should be handled prior to approval of map. Commission and staff discussed options available; i.e., continue consideration to allow applicant to provide additional information with regard to noise; review conditions of approval; and deny subject tentative map. Ms. Lytle indicated the sixty day time period is about to expire, noting the Commission must make a decision at this meeting or get the applicant's approval on another time extension. Chairman Struthers questioned the applicant if they were willing to extend the allowed time limit? L Mr. Rainey questioned what the Commission wants the applicant to do: r" asking does Commission object to 8 or 9 Lots, or desire less lots? does Commission want further information on noise levels? if commission proceeds with review of conditions of approval, will the next meeting be approval based just upon new submittal of noise information or will the review begin all over again? Commissioner Kaufman indicated: 1) the Town has approved lots of tentative maps with unbuildable areas, explaining that it does give however a larger MDA for the lots; and 2) the applicant cannot measure the noise with mitigation measures until they get the tentative map approval. Commissioner Patmore indicated she felt they have not received enough information with regard to noise levels for the subject subdivision, and would like to continue to allow applicant to provide commission with more acurate information. Chairman Struthers agreed with Commissioner Patmore, also noting Commission will still need to review all of the recommended Conditions of Approval. Mr. Enright informed Commission that Mr. Rainey needs some clarification as to why we want an extension: do we want more noise information? do we want to require additional information on the number of lots requested? Mr. Mohammidian, 6222 Mojave Drive San Jose, Applicant, questioned if the Commission did not understand Mr. Packs' report, and referred to the Town's General Plan page 114, Noise Contour Map. Planning Cannission Minutes - November 26, 1986 Pace Six Mr. Mike Malek, Ace Consulting Engineers, asked Commission if it is possible to approve the Tentative Map with the condition that mitigation would be shown for each lot? MOTION SECONDED AND WITHDRAWN: Moved by Carico, seconded by Patmore and then withdrawn to Deny the Tentative Map for the Lands of Currie, based on inadequate information as previously requested by the Commission and the Commissions inability to meet the requirements of Municipal Code Section 9-4.515, 14(e) (subsenquently re -numbered with new ordinance) as the proposed tentative map is not appropriate per General Plan requirements; design is not consistent with General Plan requirements; and site is not physically suitable for this proposed subdivision. Mr. Rainey, informed Commission they would agree to continuance and will provide commission with further noise information, for each lot if possible (weather permitting) asking Commission if there is still a concern over the number of lots requested? Commissioner Patmore indicated she has no opinion over 8 or 9 lots, noting that she would expect a noise reading on all of the proposed lots, to be taken weekdays - 112 lots in morning and 112 lots at evening, subject to the location of readings being approved by the City Engineer. Commissioner Yanez indicated that he goes along with the subcommittee recommendation, subject to conditions of approval attached to the November 20th Staff Report and as previously requested amendment by Commissioner Kaufman. Commissioner Stutz indicated that she would prefer 8 lots, however, they would be more sellable if there were 7 due to the allowed development area, further noting it may be necessary to amend condition regarding pathway easement, as it may be necessary to have 30' to allow access through trees, etc. Chairman Struthers indicated she would go along with 8 lots, if each of the lots based upon further noise information could accommodate habitable structures. Commissioner Kaufman indicated he felt they have received sufficient information at present time, and could go along with the approval of 8 lots, subject to recommended conditions of approval. Commissioner Emling indicated he is sorry that we have discussed this for two hours and are heading towards continueance and now must determine how many lots we desire, noting he really hasn't made up his mind whether 7 or 8 is appropriate. Commissioner Carico indicated she is a minority on this subdivision, indicating that 7 lots are appropriate for the site, noting if we approve as is we will be creating a need for variances, etc., noting that if applicant submits the information requested, and it proves to accomodate then she would go along. Planning Commission Minutes NQyembex 26,E 1486 Page Seven. ' lI Mr. Rainey indicated they then will agree to continuance of the subdivision and will provide commission with further noise readings for all of the lots. Ms. Lytle indicated Commission should request continuance to the next meeting, as well as an extension to allow for time for the City Council review at their meeting of January 7th. MOTION SECONDED AND CARRIED: Moved by Struthers, seconded by Carico and passed by the following roll call vote to continue the Lands of Currie, Tentative Map, File #TM 3-86, to the December 10th meeting which allows the applicant to submit further noise level readings on each lot, taken morning and evening during peak traffic hours. ROLL CALL: AYES: Commissioner Carico, Emling, Kaufman, Patmore, Stutz, and Chairman Struthers NOES: Commissioner Yanez ABSTAIN: None Commissioner Carico excused herself from meeting as she was not feeling well. 2. LANDS OF EASTERBROOKS, FILE RCDP 2-86, 25541 Fremont Road, Request for Approval of Conditional Development Permit ;and S. LANDS OF EASTERBROOKS, 25541 Fremont Road, Request for Approval of Site Development Permit for New Residence Ms. Lytle referred to Staff Reports dated October 16th and November 20th informing Commission, this application was previously considered by the Commission on October 22nd, in conjunction with a request for variance to intrude into the front setback, once right-of-way is dedicated, noting at that meeting Commission adopted a motion to deny the variance based on findings that any residence on this lot should observe the required minimum setback, and Commission recommended that the applicant re -design the residence within the required setbacks and height envelope requirements, noting that the applicant has fulfilled this recommendation and reduced the size of the proposal by approximately 500 sq.ft. Ms. Lytle indicated that prior to granting the permit for proposed residence, the Commission must make the necessary findings of Section 10-1. 1107 (c), and noted that the CDP may be conditioned to include a further reduction in the Maximum Development Area and Floor Area for the lot. Ms. Lytle also informed Commission should the Commission decide to grant approval of the Site Development Permit that it include conditions as recommended by the City Engineer, and Town Geologist, additionally standard conditions with regard to landscape and fire retartdant roofing. Commissioner Patmore questioned recommendation #2 of Mr. Cotton's report, with regard to timing of applicatons, etc., and why this is not required to be connected to sewer? Ms. Lytle indicated that action should be taken on both applications this evening, and that the applicant should not have to spend time and money on this review proposed by Cotton unless he receives approval from the Town, Ms. Lytle also indicated that a variance is no longer required as part of this application process. Mr. Enright Planning Cmmission Minutes - November 26, 1986 Page Eight indicated Mr. Cotton's recommendation (S2) is regarding fill materials and flood plain, noting it is not necessary for Commission to have this report prior to site development permit issuance, and indicating that the sewer to this lot is not available without costly expenditure by the applicant and is not a requirement of the County Health Department, also explaining what flood proofing techniques are. The Public Hearing was then opened. Mr. William Easterbrooks, Owner, with regard to flood problems, Mr. Easterbrooks informed Commission he has received approval for a tributary underground which will remove the property from the 100 year flood zone, further noting the Town of Los Altos Hills also has some work to do under the roadway. Mr. Easterbrooks indicated that he has met all requirements of the previous meeting and hope the Commission will favorably approve his applications. Mr. Enright informed Commission the pipes under Fremont Road as it turns out are adequate and is not a 36" pipe except at the catch basin, noting under the roadway it is a 4x4 concrete culvert, referring to recommended condition A6. Mr. Cal Rossi, 13867 Robleda Road, informed Commission he resides behind this property and has no objections to the present proposal. The Public Hearing was then closed. MOTION SECONDED AND CARRIED: Moved by Kaufman, seconded by Emling and passed by the following roll call vote to approve the Conditional Development Permit based on the proposal meeting the required findings of Municipal Code Section 10-1.1107 (c) (i -iv); and that the Maximum Development Area Allowed be 5,000 sq.ft. and Maximum Floor Area Allowed be 3,500 sq.ft. ROLL CALL: AYES: Commissioners Emling, Kaufman, Patmore, Stutz and Chairman Struthers NOES: None ABSTAIN: Commissioner Yanez Mr. Enright referred to Conditions of Approval recommended in Staff Memo dated October 3, 1986, noting R1, be prior to issuance of Building Permit; 92, remain as is; #3, be prior to issuance of Building Permit; R4, be deleted; N5, remain as is; R6, remain as is; A7 remain as is; d8 Landscape Plan shall be reviewed and approved by the Site Development Committee prior to final inspection.; and d9, Cotton recommendations in memo of March 10, 1986 be included, and "should" be "shall". MOTION SECONDED AND CARRIED: Moved by Yanez, seconded by Emling and passed unanimously to approve the Site Development Permit for the Lands of Easterbrooks, 25541 Fremont Road, for new residence subject to conditions 060 of approval as recommended by the City Engineer in his memo of October 3, 1986, adn as amended by Mr. Enright at the hearing; and including Landscape Plan requirement, Fire Retardant Roofing; and Town Geologist recommendations (noted as "shall"). Planning Conmission Minutes - November 26, 1986 Page Nine %W4. LANDS OF BAVOR, FILE #VAR 12-86, 13816 Page Mill Road, Request for Approval of Variance for Fence Ms. Lytle referred to Staff Report dated November 19, 1986 informing Commission the applicant is proposing to construct a 6' privacy fence along the entire southerly and easterly property lines for their lot, noting a large majority of the fence which is proposed to run along the easterly property line is in conformance with the fence and wall ordinance, however, the remainder of the proposal exceeds the allowable height by 3'• Ms. Lytle noted the purpose of the fence is to preserve the privacy for the applicant, and to lessen impacts to both their privacy and safety which will result from the development of future residential use of the Fawn Creek Court Subdivision. Ms. Lytle recommended that Commission: 1) Approve the Variance request to exceed the maximum fence height by 31, based on findings as support in Staff Report dated November 19th; and 2) Require Landscaping mitigation for the fence as part of this approval. The Public Hearing was then opened. Mrs. Nancy Bavor, 13816 Page Mill Road, explained to Commission the need for the fence, location and described property characteristics, noting this is a result of filling and vegetation removal by the subdivider, noting she is willing to water and train existing rose bushes to mitigate the fence as noted by staff, informing Commission the subdivider removed existing vegetation and has not been required to do anything. Mrs. Bavor kme informed Commission they have decided on the overlapping redwood boards. The Public Hearing was then closed. Commission and applicant discussed the location, type and height of proposed fence, noting the necessity of landscaping mitigation and maintenance thereof. MOTION SECONDED AND CARRIED: Moved by Struthers, seconded by Emling and passed unanimously to approve the Lands of Bavor Variance, File #VAR 12- 86, subject to the following condition: Applicant shall install and maintain landscaping for a one (1) year period for mitigation of the proposed fence from off site views to the satisfaction of the Site Development Authority. 4. LANDS OF FINNEY, FILE #VAR 11-86, 11876 Murietta Lane, Request for Approval of Variance to encroach into setback and declining height envelope for an addition; and 5. LANDS OF FINNEY, 11876 Murietta Lane, Request for Approval of Site Development Permit for an addition Ms. Lytle referred to Staff Reports dated November 21, 1986, informing Commission the applicant proposes to add to the existing two story house single story library addition, noting the proposed addition will blend well with the existing architecture and relate to the floor plan. Ms. Lytle described the property in relation to zoning and subdivision requirements. Ms. Lytle indicated that staff recommends that many of the Planning Camdssion Minutes - November 26, 1986 Page Ten findings for variance can be supported, specifically 1 4, 5, and 6, however, staff can not document evidence supporting findings 2 and 3. Ms. Lytle recommended that the Commission deny the variance request to exceed the setback and height envelope regulations, based on an inability to support all the necessary findings per Municipal Code Section 10-11.07 (c), as documented in Staff Report dated November 21, 1986. The Public Hearing was then opened. Mr. Finney, 11876 Murietta Lane, informed Commission that due to mature trees and configuration of existing residence on lot, this proposal is the only location for this small addition which will only extend 11' into setback and into height envelope, noting if there was another alternative he would use it, informing Commission he and Lorin Nelson from Gerard Homes have studied the site extensively, and this is the most suitable location, asking Commission to please approve his variance and site development permit requests. The Public Hearing was then closed. Commissioners and applicant discussed the required findings per Municipal Code Section, and the possibility of re -design so as not to encroach so much into the setback, noting a slight shifting of the proposed addition could accomodate the applicant without a variance. MOTION SECONDED AND CARRIED: Moved by Patmore, seconded by Kaufman and passed by the following roll call vote to Deny without Prejudice the Lands of Finney, File #VAR 11-86, as Commission could not favorably make the required findings per Municipal Code Section 10-5.1107 (c), specifically findings 2 and 3. ROLL CALL: AYE . Commissioners Kaufman, Patmore, Stutz and Chairman Struthers NOES: Commissioners Emling and Yanez ABSTAIN: None MOTION SECONDED AND CARRIED: Moved by Kaufman, seconded by Struthers and passed by the following roll call vote to Deny the Site Development Permit for the Lands of Finney, 11876 Murietta Lane for an addition based upon decision of Variance, File #VAR 11-86. ROLL CALL: A ES: Commissioners Kaufman, Patmore, Stutz, and Chairman Struthers NOES: Commissioners Emling and Yanez ABSTAIN: None Mr. Finney was informed of the Appeal procedures. LANDS OF CAREY, FILE #VAR 14-86, 13500 Country Way, Request for approval of Variance to exceed the Maximum Development Area for a new residence, swimming pool, spa, driveway and walkways; and 4. LANDS OF CAREY, 13500 Country Way, Request for Approval of Site Development Permit for a new residence and swimming pool Ms. Lytle referred to Staff Report dated November 19, 1986, informing Commission the applicant is proposing to construct a new residence, Planning Commission Minutes - November 26, 1986 Page Eleven driveway, walkways, swimming pool and patio area, informing Commission of the lots zoning and subdivision requirements; indicating that the residence is well designed to conform with the requirements and intent of the site development ordinance, low profile, stepped foundation and blends well with the natural surroundings and neighborhood. Ms. Lytle noted the primary reason for the variance is to allow sufficient driveway for proper siting of the structure to preserve the trees and to hold the residence back additional distance from the roadway. Ms. Lytle recommended that the Planning Commission approve the variance request to exceed the Maximum Development Area in order to allow construction of the necessary driveway and walkways, but deny the request to allow for cconstruction of the swimming pool. The recommended variance would be to exceed the allowed by 1,825 sq.ft., noting this recommendation is based on findings as supported in Staff Report dated November 19, 1986. The Public Hearing was then opened. Mr. Bob Stoecker, Architect, gave Commission a brief overlay, noting we concur with Staff's findings, and would like to thank staff for all their help during this process, informing Commission there was a previous application on file and tried on several levels to get approval of a house which we and Commission found inappropriate for the site. Mr. Stoecker indicated that there is a very nice cluster of trees which we'd like to keep and have design a low one story project (as low as possible) and feel that we have achieved something that is appropriate for the site and surrounding neighborhood. Mr. Stoecker indicated that while he has had some time during this afternoon, that he has revised their application, noting removal of some parking and patios, walkways, and the swimming pool, and slight modification to the overhangs and feel they could live with a 7,200 sq.ft. development area. Mr. Stoecker indicated that in regard to turf block, it is not always successful, especially in areas of turning radius, and can use near the oak trees, noting they will be in touch with McClenahan Tree Service to observe the oaks during construction, etc. Mr. Stoecker also referred to Report prepared by Crosby & Associates, as well as existing drainage problems which are possibly related to the neighbors up above irrigation system, informing Commission they will be conducting a new Soils Report for the project. The Public Hearing was then closed. Commission and Staff discussed the allowed development area, and the type of foundation proposed for the subject proposal. Mr. Enright indicated it requires a Type II foundation per Subdivision requirements. MOTION SECONDED AND CARRIED: Moved by Yanez, seconded by Stutz and pasesd by the following roll ca vote to approve the Lands of Carey Variance, File #VAR 14-86, to exceed the allowed Development Area for this property, to allow a Maximum Development Area of 7,200 sq.ft. ROLL CALL: AYE-37.—Commissioners Emling, Kaufman, Stutz, Yanez and Chairman Struthers NOES: None ABSTAIN: Commissioner Patmore MOTION SECONDED AND CARRIED: Moved by Yanez, seconded by Stutz and pased by the following roll cal ote to include in the Lands of Carey Variance, 03 Planning Cc¢mission 14inutes - November 26, 1986 Page Tvelve File #VAR 14-86, that they exclude the requirement of a Type II Foundation for this proposal. ROLL CALL: AYE�ommissioners Emling, Stutz, Yanez and Chairman Struthers NOES: Commissioners Kaufman and Patmore ABSTAIN: None MOTION SECONDED AND CARRIED: Moved by Kaufman, seconded by Struthers and passed unanimously to continue the Lands of Carey, Site Development Permit, 13500 Country Way, to allow the applicant to re -design and revise plans based upon the 7,200 sq.ft. development area allowed by Variance #VAR 14-86, and to include drainage plans for the proposed residence., to be continued to December 10th. E. NEW BUSINESS: Abandonment of Storm Drain and Sanitary Sewer Easements, Berry Hill, Unit #2, Tract #7807, Page Mill Road Area Mr. Enright referred to Staff Memo dated November 20, 1986 informing Commission as a condition of the Tentative Map for Berry Hill, Unit II, the developer was required to abandon certain storm drain and sanitary sewer easements, noting new storm drain and sewer easements were dedicated on the subdivision map to replace the easements to be abandoned, the abandonment became necessary because of the need to relocate the easements from the center of a parcel to a property line, the developer is constructing new sewer mains to replace the existing one and a pipe to divert the open channel drainage (in the storm drain easement). The original easements were created to serve the Saddle Mountain Subdivision. MOTION SECONDED AND CARRIED: Moved by Struthers, seconded by Yanez and passed unanimously to recommend to the City Council approval of the abandonment of storm drain and sanitary sewer easements for Berry Hill, Unit II. 2. Request from City Council to review antenna and tower proposals from perspective cable television companies Ms. Lytle referred to Staff Report dated November 20, 1986 informing Commission the City Council at their meeting on November 9th adopted a motion to refer to the Planning Commission an aspect of concern regarding the proposals for cable television which are currently before the Council, noting the issue referred to Commission is the necessity for using transmitting antennas and towers, and the Council has requested the Commission to preliminarily review the impacts or advantages of two systems and tentative locations. Ms. Lytle noted that United Cable system will be using one type of tower, and the Sun Cable will be using another, noting both companies have provided rough illustrations of the equipment they are proposing, noting the Sun system may be located on Foothill College campus and United tower on is Cresta at Water District Property kw site. Ms. Lytle noted that balloons were flown on Monday, November 24th to illustrate the ultimate 60' height of the United Tower, noting unfortunately, they only reached 35-40' due to wind and being tangled in trees, etc. Ms. Lytle informed Commission we have just today received %r PlanninV CQnrn].ssim Minutes - MPVenbeg 26, 1986. Page. Thirteen another proposal from Hearst Cablevision, referring to their transmittal received November 26th. Commissioner Kaufman informed Commissioners and staff on the difference betweeen the three different antennas being proposed: United headend is located in Hayward, therefore their antenna has to be able to see Hayward (i.e., La Cresta Water Tank site appropriate, although most likely will not need to be 60' in height, just high enough to see over the existing trees); noting there is also another good site which is located in the County off of La Loma, although not as adequate as the La Cresta Site. The Hearst Cable site is in Fremont and could be received from off of Black Mountain Road, at Ken Daniels residence (president) who would have dish at this site and would require a Conditional Use Permit to run a commercial receiving dish out of his residence. The Sun Cable does have currently a head, so they would have to set up an antenna farm, (i.e., a couple of dishes on the ground, and antennas), noting they have recceived conditional approval from Foothill College to locate at their location near the Child Development Center. Commissioner Kaufman noted that Commissioner Carico left a question with regard to any type of interference that would occur with these antennas. Commissioner Kaufman noted that these are receiving antennas and would not generate any interference. Councilman Siegel indicated to Commission that the Council must decide which cable company to open negotiations with, noting United does have a very obtrusive tower, but they currently serve Los Altos; Sun will apparently would use Foothill College Campus and Black Mountain Road; Hearst cable he is not familiar with, and also would use Black Mountain. Siegel indicated that commission should decide how obtrusive the tower would be to surrounding property and off-site views, and indicate if Council should go along with them? With regard to desire to have cable in Los Altos Hills' Siegel indicated that the companies have apparently performed a survey and has been well received, noting the difficulty in serving some of the Town (i.e. Sherlock Road Area). Commission indicated by consensus that the view analysis prepared by United, way under estimates the views of the proposed tower; and even at 30-40' in height, the balloons were highly visible from surrounding neighborhood as well as 280 and other off-site view areas, requesting that Staff forward their statement on to the City Council at their meeting of December 3rd. 3. Meeting Schedule for December MOTION SECONDED AND CARRIED: Moved by Struthers, seconded by Stutz and passed unanimously to canceT the December 24, 1986 Planning Commission Meeting as there would not be a quorum. C( F. OLD BUSINESS: 1. Prioritization of items on the Draft Work Program Ms. Lytle referred to memo of November 21st, informing Commission she needs Commission to re -do their last statements, indicating they should Planning Ccmnissicn Minutes - NoyentUeF 26, 1986 Page Pqurteen. number from 1-20; 1 first priority and 20 last priority. Commissioners will review the list attached to the November 21st report and return with their priorities on Monday, December 1st. G. ADJOURNMENT: There being no further new or old business, the meeting was adjourned at 6:50 P.M. Respectfully submitted, Leslie Mullins Planning Technician