HomeMy WebLinkAbout08/12/1987PLANNING COMMISSION
TOWN OF LOS ALTOS HILLS
26379 Fremont Road
Los Altos Hills, California
Wednesday, August 12, 1987
Reel 130, Side I, Tract I, 000-935
Acting Chairman Kaufman called the meeting to order at 7:32 P.M. in the Town
Hall Council Chambers.
A. ROLL CALL AND PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE:
Present: Commissioners Emling, Kaufman, Patmore, Struthers,
Stutz (arrrived 7:36 p.m.)
Absent: Commissioners Carico and Yanez
Staff: Nancy Lytle, Town Planner, Leslie Mullins, Secretary
Bill Ekern, Acting Director of Public Works
City Council Representative: No attendance
B. CONSENT CALENDAR:
Item Removed - B.1 (Patmore)
Patmore requested on page nine, item #2, of the July 22, 1987 Planning
Commission Minutes be corrected to add: The item was resolved, and
Planning Commissioners agreed that no further information was necessary
for review by the Planning Commission.
MOTION SECONDED AND CARRIED: Moved by Struthers, seconded by Patmore and
passed unanimously to approve the Consent Calendar, specifically:
1. Minutes of July 22, 1987, as amended.
2. Setting Public Hearings for August 26, 1987:
a. Lands of Savor, Conditional Use Permit and Site Development Permit
File #CUP 3-87, 13816 Page Mill Road
b. Resolution No. setting the time and place of hearing on proposed
changes and amendments to the text of Chapter 1 of Title 10 of the
Los Altos Hills Municipal Code entitled "Zoning Law of the Town of
Los Altos Hills" and recommendation concerning a proposed negative
declaration
C. REPORT FROM CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF AUGUST 5, 1987:
Commissioner Struthers reported City Council approved Resolution
Lo awarding contract for the Pavement Management Road Improvements to
Graham Contractors; approved Resolution approving final subdivision
map for Del Monte Properties, South Fork Lane; denied the Lands of
Clausen Tentative Map; approved the attendance of two representatives
from the Town at the Rural Renaissance Conference at a cost of no
greater than $400.00; allowed the structure on Lot #14, Kerman,
Matadero Creek Subdivision, to exceed the limits of the building site
circle in the eastern corner of the lot provided that it meets all
zoning requirements of the Town; continued consideration of request
from Mr. Chan on Lot #13, Matadero Creek Subdivision, until his plans
conform with the minimum zoning ordinance requirements for the
subdivision; passed by consensus to place the change in priority for
the Planning Agency Work Program regarding the Matadero Creek
Subdivision Conditions of Approval for a future Agenda; nuisance
complaint regarding barbed wire fence at 11800 Page Mill Road (Voros)
passed by consensus to continue the item to the next City Council
meeting to allow Council adequate opportunity to review the original
complaint filed with the Town; passed by consensus to request the
Horsemen's Association to review and evaluate the present ordinance
relating to number of horses on a property and to make a report to
City Council on this matter and to continue this item to the next
meeting for a report from the City Manager on past policy on this
subject; Mayor reported on Matadero Creek Subcommittee, she,
Councilmember van Tamelen and representatives of the Matadero Creek
Subdivision met and discussed several items of issues of concern:
upgraded entrance, private vs. public roads, streets and drainage,
widening access road, safety, neighborhood watch, pathway maintenance
and fire hydrant, the mayor noted that all of these items had been
discussed with the City Manager who was reviewing them, in addition
the request from residents for an increase in the Development Area of
their properties would be discussed by the Planning Commission during
their work program; nuisance complaint on Gilfoil, Carillo Lane was
voted to discontinue the proceedings of the nuisance complaint filed;
and passed by consensus to request the Mayor to send the County a
letter commending the Preservation 2020 Task Force for a well done
document and referring to the areas of concern as expressed by the
City Council, i.e., impacts of hillside cluster development adjacent
to low density areas; the necessity of carefully applying hillside
transfer of development credits where proposed and the importance of
trail and pathway connections.
REPORT FROM SITE DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE MEETINGS OF JULY 28, 1987 AND
AUGUST 11 , 198T•
Commissioner Kaufman reported the Site Development Committee on July
28th reviewed: Sivertson on Fawn Creek Court to allow removal of
eucalyptus tree, which is to be replaced by two 15 gallon trees within
the same general vicinity; Fisher on Fernhill Drive request for tree
removal withdrawn from Agenda as they decided the tree did not need to
be removed after all; Swimming Pool for Lee on Saddle Mountain Drive
approved; Addition for Sanders on Toyonita approved; Remodel/Addition
for Richardson on Camino Hermoso approved; New Residence, Swimming
Pool, Cabana for Tyabji on Story Hill Lane approved.
-2-
Commissioner Emling reported the Site Development Committee on August
11th reviewed: Landscape Plan and entry modification for Thompson on
Bentley Court was continued as no one showed up for hearing; addition
for Chen on Springhill approved; new residence and swimming pool for
Jaiswal on Gigli Court approved, noting the property is at its maximum
allowed development and Committee discussed with applicant the
consequences thereof, with regard to future development and variances;
New Residence for Herpick on Horseshoe Court approved with negotiation
by the Pathway Committee for a pathway to go from Horseshoe to La
Cresta although it is not shown on the Master Pathway Plan; fence on
Via Ventana for Kratz was denied and applicant was informed they may
appeal the decision to the Planning Commission within ten days,
referring to Marc Kaufmans memo to the City Manager received this
date; Retaining Wall for Nam on La Rena Lane was approved as redlined,
for work done without permits. Commissioner Emling stressed the
importance of Planning Commissioners doing Site Touring together in
case of emergencies happening in the field, referreing to an accident
which happened to him at the Nam property when a set of stairs
collapsed below him.
E. PRESENTATIONS FROM THE FLOOR:
F. PUBLIC HEARINGS:
1. Preliminary Review of the application for a new residence at 27067
Horseshoe Lane, Vayntrub
`. Ms. Lytle referred to Staff Report dated August 7, 1987 informing
Planning Commission this site received a preliminary review on
September 10, 1986, noting the concept at that time was fairly
similar. Ms. Lytle noted the plans submitted would require variance
for at least the garage and parking area height and for MDA, according
to the applicant's calculations, and would require a Conditional
Development Permit since the lot unit factor is less than .5. Ms.
Lytle recommended that the Planning Commission discuss the plans with
the applicant to provide guidance to the applicant prior to his
submitting zoning, site development, conditional development permit
and variance applications. Ms. Lytle noted that according to the
preliminary review policy, the Commission shall take no formal
actions, and any comments or opinions are not binding.
The Public Hearing was then opened.
Mr. Alex Vayntrub, 223 Thatcher Lane, Foster City, and his Architect
reviewed the proposed plans submitted to the Planning Commissioners
for review and presented photographs of the site showing elevations,
existing adjacent property development, and proposed location of
residence.
Commissioner Kaufman raised concern over: 1) the difficult access to
this subject lot; 2) difficulties over the location of septic
leachfield; 3) minimum allowed Development Area and Floor Area for the
4 subject lot, noting concern over a large home on such a small lot.
-3-
Commissioner Patmore concurred with Commissioner Kaufman, noting she
feels that this area is quite built-up and that if a variance
application were processed, she would be favorable to a variance for
the garage only for safety reasons, but would not favor a variance to
exceed the allowed Development or Floor Area.
Commissioner Struthers suggested that the structure be sunk more into
the hillside thereby reducing the visibility and bulkiness of the
structure, and suggested reduction of the Floor Area. With regard to
access to the property, Struthers indicated the access to the property
is good at the top.
Commissioner Stutz questioned if the worksheets provided with this
review include decks and overhangs? Ms. Lytle informed Commission
that staff has not reviewed the worksheets as no fees have yet been
paid on this application.
Mr. Vayntrub's architect informed Commissioners that this plan and the
elevations were done to fill space, and the proposed structure will
not look like this, noting they would like to rotate the building and
be parallel with contours.
Commissioner Kaufman questioned if the setbacks have been determined?
Ms. Lytle informed Commission that the forty foot (40') setback is
from Arastradero Road.
Mr. Bob Latta, 27061 Horseshoe Lane, referred to the last preliminary
review which was before the Commission in September 1986, informing
Commission he was at that time in favor of the development because he
felt that since the developer would have been George Dai who is a
neighbor himself and an architect that the design would be appropriate
to the site and existing neighborhood. Mr. Latta indicated that with
the previous review he raised concern over: trees, closeness of
structure to his residence; septic system, access, gate, aesthetics,
etc. Mr. Latta noted he felt it would be good to rotate the structure
and indicated that the height would be well below his house, noting
some concern over the garage, which is shown to be 5' above the
driveway and he feels unacceptable.
The Public Hearing was then closed.
Commissioners and applicant briefly reviewed comments received on the
subject preliminary review, relating concern over bulkiness and
visibility of proposal, need to rotate and conform more to contours,
lowering of structure, and keeping proposal in conformance with
allowed development area and floor areas for the subject lot.
2. R -1-A Zoning Ordinance
Ms. Lytle referred to Staff Report dated August 6, 1987, informing
Commission that the Planning Commission previously made recommendation
to the City Council to recommend that the R -1-A Zoning Ordinance is
4W not recommended. Ms. Lytle informed Commission that the City Council
-4-
on July 15th, as authorized in the Government Code Sections 65853 and
65854, required the Planning Commission to hold the public hearing and
report back to the City Council within forty days. Ms. Lytle noted
that staff continues to recommend the original R -1-A zoning overlay
district, which required the use of natural colors and materials and
single story ordinance, noting in general, staff recommends that the
goals of the General Plan and Site Development Ordinance are more
effectively implemented with design review type regulations. Ms.
Lytle indicated that staff does not recommend any further complication
of the existing zoning ordinance formulas, since even the existing
formulas tend to be excessively complicated for use by the general
public, and lead to numerous misunderstandings and mistakes. Ms.
Lytle further noted that staff does not see the difficulty in defining
districts for which overlay zoning designations can apply, noting
definition of the district can be made on the basis of physicaly
characteristics , environmental attributes or constraints, and
development patterns and intensity.
Commissioners and staff discussed the City Attorney's presentation
made at a previous meeting with regard to defining a zoning overlay
district, and actions by the Planning Commission and City Council
which have taken place thus far on the proposed ordinance for the
benefit of the public in attendance this evening.
The Public Hearing was then opened.
Mr. Paul Reneau, 13149 Byrd Lane, stressed the need of a zoning
overlay district within certain areas of Town which are currently low
in profile with regard to residential development, ridgelines, etc.,
noting his uncomfortabiness with the idea that the Site Development
Committee will review proposals in these areas, noting he does not
feel that the Committee can adequately address concerns over
bulkiness, height and style of proposed residences, asking that
Commission recommend approval to the City Council of a R -1-A Zoning
District Overlay, as proposed in the Ordinance.
Mr. Art Lachenbruch, 11820 Buena Vista Drive, indicated there are two
issues with regard to the subject overlay districts: 1) do we want R-
1 -A zoning?; and 2) what strategy do we devise to implement it?,
informing Commission that he does not feel that the first issue has
yet been completely exhausted, noting the Town has had philosophy of
one zoning district to adapt to all different types of terrain,
questioning if we would be making a mistake by offering other options,
and if so it would need a very strong purpose statement relating to
the Town's General Plan. Mr. Lachenbruch informed Commission of his
participation in the zoning overlay district, noting he prepared a
careful study back in April/May 1987 of existing residences, noting on
the average residences in his neighborhood are 2,500 sq.ft., and he at
that time proposed a reduction in the Floor Area formula for zoning
overlay districts.
-5-
Commissioner
Kaufman raised concern
over the
minimum floor area of
3,000 sq.ft.,
(as garages
and high
ceilings
in living rooms (etc.),
are counted towards
floor
area), is
this amount
adequate and/or fair?
-5-
Mr. Lachenbruch noted these are very small lots and he feels 3,000
(( sq.ft. is very fair.
4ar Commissioner Struthers questioned if it would be appropriate to give
the applicant a choice to either lower the floor area, or construct a
single story structure? Ms. Lytle noted a "Good Design Bonus" concept
mutually agreed upon criteria is a good idea. Mr. Lachenbruch noted
that this is the creative type of thinking we need to explore, noting
perhaps good design, or size or a combination of both would be very
good. Mr. Lachenbruch noted he would very much like to hear more
discussion over the two types of zoning, within less developed
portions of Town.
Commissioner Emling questioned Mr. Lachenbruch on the negative effect
on the Town for two different types of zoning districts.
Mr. Lachenbruch informed Commission and public that one of the Town's
strengths is that we are a Single Residential District, noting if we
create new type of zoning, are we really saying that our old system
does not work? If then, someone could then make a 3rd district or a
4th. Mr. Lachenbruch raised concern over a basic change in the Town's
philosophy with regard to zoning, and expressed concern with this in
regard to areas such as: Quarry Property; Adobe Creek Property, which
could lead to less restrictive zoning policies of the Town.
Commissioner Patmore questioned the item reported in the City Council
report with regard to the Matadero Creek Subdivision. Mr. Lachenbruch
explained to Commissioners and public the process of the Town
involvement in the purchasing of the Palo Alto School District site
and subdividing into 20 lots for purposes of low density development.
The Public Hearing was then closed.
Commissioner Kaufman indicated that he agrees that we have not yet
addressed the issue adequately of whether we need a zoning overlay
district or not, and is not yet defined in my mind, however, this item
has been referred to us by the City Council for a recommendation on
this subject ordinance or on another.
Commissioner Patmore indicated that she would be interested in
supporting not to adopt this particular ordinance, but recommend we
continue discussion on zoning overlay district, and go on with the
process as there is a community desire to explore this option in
another form. Commissioner Patmore noted she would like to see
statement that if there is support for restrictive zoning that more
work needs to be done on it.
Commissioner Struthers indicated that she would like to see something
more in line with the idea of creative development (as discussed
earlier), as an option for the applicant, but indicated the need for
further study.
Commissioner
Stutz indicated
that
she
is against the overlay district
at this time,
noting she has
been
on a
lot of Site Development
Committee meetings over the last 5-6 years, and feels that public
participation is welcome at the Committee meetings, noting she has on
L many occassions asked for re -design of structures to conform with the
♦r existing neighborhoods, when the proposal is out of character with
regard to size, bulk, and style. Commissioner Stutz indicated we have
not given our new zoning and site development ordinance enough time to
evolve and see how it is weathering, also raising concern over
restricting development to single story, questioning who is to
determine what single story is? Referring to two recent designed
single story structures which have been approximately 22' in height.
Commissioner Emling concurred with Commissioner Stutz, and raised
concern over changes to the Town's Zoning, and would have trouble with
R -1-A Zoning Ordinance as presented. As indicated by Commissioner
Stutz, Commissioner Emling noted he too has requested items be
continued at Site Development Level for redesign, to keep in
conformance with existing neighborhoods. Commissioner Emling
indicated he would like to look into more rigorous design standards.
Commissioner Kaufman informed Commission he has a problem with
continuing this item, as we do not know what we want, as it is very
hard to define for different areas within the Town.
Mr. Paul Reneau, 13149 Byrd Lane, informed Commission he is very
unhappy that the Commission would just drop this issue, noting he
feels like we are giving up, asking Commissioners to please not walk
away from this issue.
Commissioner Kaufman explained that he did not feel that the
Commission is walking away from this idea, noting issues are not to be
decided this evening, noting he believes that this item will remain on
the Planning Commissioners Work Program, but indicated Commission
would like to see some other proposals, i.e., good creative thoughts.
Commissioner Patmore questioned if we could leave this item on the
Work Program? Ms. Lytle suggested that the Commission recommend to
the City Council that it be left on the Work Program as an on-going
item.
MOTION SECONDED AND CARRIED: Moved by Stutz, seconded by Emling and
passed by the following roll call vote to recommend to the City
Council that we reject the R -1-A Zoning Ordinance as described in the
August 6, 1987 Staff Report not be recommended for acceptance at the
present time.
ROLL CALL:
AYES: Commissioners Emling, Kaufman and Stutz
NOES: Commissioners Patmore and Struthers
ABSENT: Commissioners Carico and Yanez
Commissioners Patmore and Struthers indicated they voted no because
they would like to keep this item on the Work Program as a separate
item, and would recommend to the City Council that the Planning
Commission recommends that the R -1-A Zoning Ordinance as it is now
worded not be recommended for adoption, thus worded in one motion.
-7-
PASSED BY CONSENSUS: Planning Commission recommends to the City
` Council that this item be left on the Work Program and will bring up
�« when we have better idea and concept.
G. NEW BUSINESS:
Vesting Tentative Map Ordinance
Ms. Lytle referred to August 6, 1987 Staff Report, informing Planning
Commission in 1984 the legislature enacted a detailed set of procedures
for approving "Vesting Tentative Maps", noting the law allows local
agencies to approve vesting tentative maps which upon approval, confer
vested rights to proceed with development in substantial compliance with
specified ordinances, policies and standards in effect when applications
are accepted as complete. Ms. Lytle noted with this ordinance, the Town
is allowing subdividers to incur vested rights only when they receive all
discretionary approvals simultaneous with the tentative map approval,
noting that subdivisions would be basically required to go through the
zoning and site development ordinances. Ms. Lytle recommended that: 1)
the Planning Commission adopt a motion recommending that the City Council
approve a Negative Declaration for the project; and 2) that the Planning
Commission adopt a motion recommending that the City Council adopt the
Vesting Tentative Map attached to the August 6, 19877 Staff Report.
Commission and staff discussed the proposed vesting tentative map
ordinance how it relates to: state law; Vidovich proposal. Ms. Lytle
indicated that she does not feel the Vesting Tentative Map had invisioned
a Town such as Los Altos Hills, noting it applies more to a higher density
development, where details such as sewer, water, geotechnical studies,
storm drains and roads, etc. are more apt to be part of the application.
MOTION SECONDED AND CARRIED: Moved by Patmore, seconded by Stutz and
passed unanimously to recommend that the City Council approve a Negative
Declaration for the Vesting Tentative Map Ordinance.
MOTION SECONDED AND CARRIED: Moved by Patmore, seconded by Stutz and
passed unanimously to recommend that the City Council adopt the Vesting
Tentative Map Ordinance attached to the August 6, 1987 Staff Report.
2. Planning Commissioner's Institute
Ms. Lytle recommended that the Planning Commission and Planning Staff
request authorization from the City Manager to attend this one day seminar
in San Francisco on September 26, 1987. Ms. Mullins indicated the
deadline for applications is September 18th. Commissioners Stutz and
Emling indicated they would like to attend. Commissioner Kaufman
recommended that we ask for seven spaces.
3. Notice of Preparation, Draft EIR, Stanford University Use Permit
( Ms. Lytle informed Planning Commission on July 31, 1987 staff referred to
the Commission the Notice of Preparation on the Draft EIR for Stanford
a
University Use Permit, noting further information has been received from
Jaunell Waldo, Santa Clara County Staff. Ms. Lytle further indicated Mr.
( Phil Williams from Stanford Planning will be making a presentation to the
\r City Council at their regular meeting of September 2nd. Ms. Lytle noted
Commission will be informed of deadlines for comments. Ms. Lytle indicated
that the Stanford Property is not within the Town's Sphere of Influence,
but is within the Town's General Plan concern planning area, noting a
suggestion might be to formulate a subcommittee to review, and perhaps
staff will be making request for extension.
4. Report on the color of the new residence at 12025 Moody Springs
Court
Ms. Lytle informed Commission staff has reviewed the files for this new
residence, and it has been determined that the application was not subject
to the color and material control of Urgency Ordinance #292, because it
was submitted in September 1984, prior to the date of adoption. Ms. Lytle
noted that it was not subject to the color and material control of the
Site Development Ordinance because Ordinance #292, had not yet been
adopted and the site development permit contained no requirement for house
colors, therefore, staff sees no means of requiring a change of color at
this time.
H. OLD BUSINESS:
1. Commissioner Kaufman reported Mayor Tryon was elected as Chairman to
Mayor's Conference.
I. ADJOURNMENT:
There being no further new or old busisness, the meeting was adjourned
at 10:10 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Leslie Mullins
Planning Technician
L"M