HomeMy WebLinkAbout10/14/1987PLANNING COMMISSION
(
TOWN OF LOS ALTOS HILLS
26379 Fremont Road
Los Altos Hills, California
Wednesday, October 14, 1987
Reel
131, Side I, Tract I, 550 -End; Side II, Tract
I, 000 -
Acting
Chairman Kaufman called the meeting to order
at 7:30 P.M. in the Town
Hall
Council Chambers.
A.
ROLL CALL AND PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE:
Present: Commissioners Carico, Emling (arrived
at 8:10 p.m.), Kaufman,
Patmore, Struthers and Stutz
Absent: Chairman Yanez
Staff: Bill Ekern, Director of Public Works;
Nancy Lytle, Town Planner;
'
Leslie Mullins, Secretary
City Council Representative: Councilman Plummer
B.
CONSENT CALENDAR:
Item Removed - B.1 (Patmore)
Commissioner Patmore requested the minutes of September
23, 1987, page
eleven be amended as follows: First Paragraph,
second sentence, replace
"myself" with "Struthers".
MOTION SECONDED AND CARRIED: Moved by Carico,
seconded by Stutz and
passed unanimously to approve the Consent Calendar,
specifically:
1. Approval of Minutes:
a. September 9, 1987
b. September 23, 1987, as amended
2. Acceptance of Tentative Map for filing:
a. Lands of Tykeson/Huang, File #TM 2-87,
25724 Altamont Road,
APN: 182-17-019, Proposed Two Lot Subdivision
Gross Acreage: 3.48 Net Acreage:
3.18
3. Setting Public Hearings for October 28, 1987:
kw a. Lands of Dekraker, File #VAR 22-87, 27233 Deersprings Way,
Variance and Site Development Permit for addition to exceed
allowed Floor Area for the lot
Lands of Mueller, File #CUP 5-87, 27868 Via Corita Way,
Conditional Use Permit for maids quarters
Lands of Tykeson/Huang, File #TM 2-87, 25724 Altamont Road,
Tentative Map and Negative Declaration for Two Lot Subdivision
C. REPORT FROM CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF OCTOBER 7,1987:
Commissioner Carico reported the City Council concurred with variance
approvals for Chan on Deersprings Way and Stinson on Taaffe Road; van
Tamelen pulled off the Consent Calendar the Lumbard variance on La
Barranca based on a very close Planning Commission vote (4-3) and staff's
recommendation that the Commission deny the variance, noting that the
variance approval as concurred by City Council by a 2-3 vote. Commissioner
Carico indicated that the City Council approved abandonment of Burke and
Sunset Way right-of-way, subject to Conservation Easement, PUB and pathway
be preserved; R -1-A zoning ordinance City Council voted to suspend action
on the ordinance and inform the Planning Commission that the City Council
is still interested in taking studies regarding neighborhood preservation
particularly during the General Plan Review; adopted Ordinance regarding
minor variances and findings; adopted Ordinance regarding street trees,
shrubs and plants; adopted Ordinance regarding vesting tentative maps;
introduced ordinance regarding hour of City Council meetings to be 7:15
p.m. as a compromise; appointed Bill Ekern as the Town's representative to
the Northwest Flood Control zone Advisory Committee and Bill Siegel as
Town's Alternate; adopted motion to direct staff as policy to interpret
existing ordinance which allows 2 horses per acre level with an additional
horse being allowed for each additional half acre or fraction thereof, as
noted in the City Managers report dated 8/13/87; directed City Attorney to
prepare the appropriate reimbursement agreement consideration at next
meeting for Lands of Currie Subdivision (O'Keefe Lane); adopted Resolution
approving and authorizing excecution of agreement between the Town and
William Cotton & Associates for update of Town's Geotechnical Hazards Map;
received report from Pathway Committee; received recommendation from
Safety Committee regarding traffic safety on Natoma between Simon and
Black Mountain Road and recommendation regarding guardrails at 25311
Fremont Road; continued item on placing signs at certain locations in Town
concerning bicycling single file; van Tamelen and Tryon to act as
volunteers to tabulate and analyze the results of the police services
questionnaire.
V
-3-
D. REPORT FROM SITE DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE MEETINGS OF SEPTEMBER 29 1987•
OCTOBER 6, 1987 AND OCTOBER 13, 1987:
Commissioner Stutz reported the Site Development Committee on September
29, 1987 approved driveway modification on Fisher, Fernhill Drive;
Swimming Pool and Landscape Plan for Sivertson on Fawn Creek Court;
Driveway Modification and mailbox subject to height approval for Mele on
Berry Hill Court; Driveway and Parking Area Modification and Height
increase for Pratt addition/remodel.
Commissioner Patmore reported the Site Development Committee on October 6,
1987 approved addition for Krass on Story Hill Lane; new residence, tennis
court and swimming pool for Beedle on Rebecca Lane; new residence on
Stanford Court for Wang with concerns raised over drainage;
addition/remodel for Nesbitt on Adonna Court; New Residence for Eyvazov on
Dawson referred to Commission because of high visibility of structure and
proposed structure is built up to the allowed MDA and MFA.
Commissioner Carico reported the Site Development Committee on October 13,
1987 approved driveway modification for Bateman on Gigli Court; Addition
on Byrne Park for Ivy; Roof height modification for Lee on Tracy Court;
swimming pool, deck and landscaping approved for Somekh on Moody Road.
E. PRESENTATIONS FROM THE FLOOR:
F. PUBLIC HEARINGS:
1. Lands of St. Nicholas School, File #CUP 53-59, 12816 S. E1 Monte Road,
Annual Review and Amendment of Conditional Use Permit
Ms. Lytle referred to Staff Report dated October 8, 1987 informing
PlanningCommission the CUP was last reviewed in July 1985, noting at that
time the permit had not been reviewed since it was granted in 1959 and the
CUP was then amended and updated. Ms. Lytle informed Commission staff has
received no complaints regarding the school since the time of the last
review, recommending that the Commission adopt a motion to approve the
extension of the subject Conditional Use Permit subject to amendment of
Condition #3, to read as follows: #3. The use of the public address
system shall be limited to five minutes each morning for the morning
assembly.
Commissioner Carico questioned the location of any pathways to this
property as per the Town's Master Path Plan.
The Public Hearing was then opened.
Mrs. Fran Stevenson, Chairman Pathway Committee, informed Commission there
is a pathway on Voorhees Drive and an easement which goes back to
Summerhill although it is blocked, and would need another piece to
continue.
-4 -
Commissioner Struthers questioned if St. Nicholas would be interested in
granting a pathway? Commissioner Stutz indicated a pathway would be
necessary to keep the children off of the busy roadway.
Ms. Roe Taylor, Representative for St. Nicholas School, indicated that she
could not answer if the school would grant a pathway easement, noting she
would have to have the request reviewed by the diocese and report back to
Commission.
The Public Hearing was then closed.
Commissioner Patmore indicated the annual review should be conducted every
two years rather than annually, and to be reviewed if complaints are
received.
MOTION SECONDED AND CARRIED: Moved by Patmore, seconded by Carico and
passed unanimously to add New Condition #3 to St. Nicholas School
Conditional Use Permit, to read as follows: The use of the public address
system shall be limited to five minutes each morning for the morning
assembly.
MOTION SECONDED AND CARRIED: Moved by Patmore, seconded by Kaufman and
passed by the following roll call vote to approve the Lands of St.
Nicholas School Conditional Use Permit, File #CUP 53-59 subject to
addition of Condition #3, and that the review of the Conditional Use
Permit shall occur every two (2) years, unless complaints are received at
Town Hall with regard to the Use Permit.
ROLL CALL:
AYES: Commissioners Patmore, Struthers and Acting Chairman Kaufman
NOES: Commissioners Carico and Stutz
Commissioner Carico voted no because standard procedure is to conduct
reviews on CUP's every year.
Lands of Hughes/Giles, File #VAR 20-87, 27800 Saddle Court, Request
for Variance to exceed the maximum allowable height of 27' and Site
Development Permit for Minor Bedroom Addition
Ms. Lytle referred to Staff Report dated October 8, 1987 informing
Commission the applicants are proposing to construct a minor 60 sq.ft.
addition to the master bedroom, noting in order to match the roofline of
the addition to the existing roofline it is necessary to exceed the 27'
height limitation by a maximum of 2' for the length of the addition. Ms.
Lytle indicated that the statement addressing the required six findings
for variance as per Municipal Code Section 10-1.1107 (b) provided by the
applicant as part of the variance application dated August 18, 1987, is
adequate basis for recommendation of approval of the subject variance.
c6z
The Public Hearing was then opened and closed with no one speaking for or
against this item.
Commissioner Patmore indicated Finding #3 should be reworded as follows:
U. Deprivation of Privileges. Strict application of the 27' height
limitation in this instance would deprive the property owners of the
ability to have a home profile which is aesthetically compatable to
existing structure, a privilege enjoyed by other property owners in the
vicinity.
MOTION SECONDED AND CARRIED: Moved by Patmore, seconded by Kaufman and
passed unanimously to approve the Lands of Hughes/Giles, File #VAR 20-87,
27800 Saddle Court, to exceed the maximum allowable height of 27' by 2' in
order to construct a minor bedroom addition as shown on plans dated
Received, August 18, 1987, subject to amendment to Condition #3. to read
as follows: Strict application of the 27' height limitation in this
instance would deprive the property owners of the ability to have a home
profile which is aesthetically compatible to existing structure, a
privilege enjoyed by other property owners in the vicinity.
Mr. Ekern referred to Staff Report dated October 8, 1987 informing
Commission the Site Development Permit is recommended to be adopted
subject to conditions as listed in the October 8th staff report.
Commissioners requested that a condition be added for preservation of tree
on east side of addition.
Mr. John Hughes, 27800 Saddle Court, informed Commission they too want to
preserve trees on the property.
MOTION SECONDED AND CARRIED: Moved by Patmore, seconded by Stutz and
passed by the following roll call vote to approve the Site Development
Permit for Lands of Hughes/Giles for minor bedroom addition subject to
conditions as recommended by Staff in the October 8th staff report and
addition of new condition #4., to read as follows: Preserve or replace
tree on east side of the proposed addition.
ROLL CALL:
AYES: Commissioners Carico, Patmore, Struthers, Stutz and Acting Chairman
Kaufman
NOES: None
ABSTAIN: Commissioner Emling
Mr. Ekern referred to Staff Report dated October 8, 1987 informing
Commission on August 17, 1987 the Kratz's were denied a Site Development
Permit to place a fence along their property line, noting in this instance
the property line is the centerline of a 10' pedestrian/equestrian trail
easement. Mr. Ekern noted the reason for denial is that the fence was not
in keeping with the desires and intents of the Town, nor was it
appropriate to fence the pathway in an effort to deny access to the
pathway. Mr. Ekern recommended that the appeal be denied and the decision
of the Site Development Committee upheld.
Mrs. Fran Stevenson, Chairman Pathway Committee, informed Commission we do
not wish to abandon this pathway easement.
The Public Hearing was then opened.
Mr. Kratz, 27789 Via Ventana, handed out new plans for review by the
Commission which reduces the fence proposal from original submittal,
noting the fence will blend into the existing shrubs. Mr. Kratz informed
Commission they do not want to place the fence on the edge of the easement
for fear that the neighbors will then plant into the easement itself,
further noting the easement does not even go anywhere and is very steep
4W and covered with poison oak.
Mr. Ekern informed Planning Commission and public that the property
corners are set with iron pipes when surveyed and easement lines are
marked with temporary markers.
Mrs. Jurvetson, 27765 Via Ventana, informed Commission that this is a
disagreement with regard to location of property lines, noting the Kratz's
have placed iron pipes into the easement which are very dangerous, further
noting old plantings were removed and now the only plantings which remain
within the easement are on a very severe slope.
Commissioner Kaufman stressed the importance of the Pathway Committee
making a decision to either abandon the easement or have the easement
maintained.
Mrs. Fran Steveson, Chairman Pathway Committee, informed Commission that
she does not feel this is a pathway concern, noting it has started out
long ago as a lot line dispute, noting she spoke recently to Wendy Gillis
who lived in the Jurvetson residence prior, noting she indicated that
there were surveys prepared previously and just inside the large trees is
a clear 5' easement, noting further that the proposed fence is within the
easement, and should only be allowed to be at the edge of the easement,
noting the pine trees should be trimmed by the home owners to keep the
pathway cleared for travel. Mrs. Stevenson indicated that the Pathway
Committee does not wish to abandon the easement.
3. Lands of Kratz,
27789 Via Ventana,
Appeal of
Site Development Decision
regarding open
sire mesh fence and
location
of pathway easement
Mr. Ekern referred to Staff Report dated October 8, 1987 informing
Commission on August 17, 1987 the Kratz's were denied a Site Development
Permit to place a fence along their property line, noting in this instance
the property line is the centerline of a 10' pedestrian/equestrian trail
easement. Mr. Ekern noted the reason for denial is that the fence was not
in keeping with the desires and intents of the Town, nor was it
appropriate to fence the pathway in an effort to deny access to the
pathway. Mr. Ekern recommended that the appeal be denied and the decision
of the Site Development Committee upheld.
Mrs. Fran Stevenson, Chairman Pathway Committee, informed Commission we do
not wish to abandon this pathway easement.
The Public Hearing was then opened.
Mr. Kratz, 27789 Via Ventana, handed out new plans for review by the
Commission which reduces the fence proposal from original submittal,
noting the fence will blend into the existing shrubs. Mr. Kratz informed
Commission they do not want to place the fence on the edge of the easement
for fear that the neighbors will then plant into the easement itself,
further noting the easement does not even go anywhere and is very steep
4W and covered with poison oak.
Mr. Ekern informed Planning Commission and public that the property
corners are set with iron pipes when surveyed and easement lines are
marked with temporary markers.
Mrs. Jurvetson, 27765 Via Ventana, informed Commission that this is a
disagreement with regard to location of property lines, noting the Kratz's
have placed iron pipes into the easement which are very dangerous, further
noting old plantings were removed and now the only plantings which remain
within the easement are on a very severe slope.
Commissioner Kaufman stressed the importance of the Pathway Committee
making a decision to either abandon the easement or have the easement
maintained.
Mrs. Fran Steveson, Chairman Pathway Committee, informed Commission that
she does not feel this is a pathway concern, noting it has started out
long ago as a lot line dispute, noting she spoke recently to Wendy Gillis
who lived in the Jurvetson residence prior, noting she indicated that
there were surveys prepared previously and just inside the large trees is
a clear 5' easement, noting further that the proposed fence is within the
easement, and should only be allowed to be at the edge of the easement,
noting the pine trees should be trimmed by the home owners to keep the
pathway cleared for travel. Mrs. Stevenson indicated that the Pathway
Committee does not wish to abandon the easement.
-7-
L The Public Hearing was then closed.
Commissioners informed applicant that fences are not allowed within
pathway easements, noting unforunate circumstance that existing plantings
are located within easement, noting preferrable location of fencing would
be to the side of the subject easement.
MOTION SECONDED AND CARRIED: Moved by Carico, seconded by Struthers and
passed unanimously to uphold the Site Development Committee decision of
August 11, 1987 to deny the fence, noting fences are not allowed to be
placed within pathway easements.
kw
kwe
E
4. Lands of Evvazov, Int #30, Dawson Drive, Referral of Site Develognent
Permit for New Residence from Site Development Conmittee
Mr. Ekern referred to Staff Report dated October 8, 1987 informing Planning Cmmission
that staff in a memo to the Site Developrent Camittee dated Septetber 22, 1987 has raised
the necessity for an interpretation of Section 10-1.504 (d) the Planning Commission in
order to allow the proposed retaining walls for this project, in addition to zoning
questions, this project was referred to the Cannission by the Site Development Catmittee
due to the following concerns: 1) highly visible lot in the Dawson Subdivision along the
I-280 corridor, a State Scenic Highway; 2) site lacks vegetation, which makes it extremely
difficult to blend the structure into the natural setting, as required by the Site
Development Ordinance; 3) proposal utilizes all available MA and has made no provision
for outdoor living area; and 4) two story structure design, portions of which are oriented
cross -contour, and exttaordinary architectural style will make this residence obtrusive
and difficult to mitigate with landscaping. Mr. Ekern also noted that the downhill neighbors
1 raised concern as to the immact of this level of developmnt on their drainage system.
r Mr. Ekern indicated if the Planning Commission wishes to approve the Site Development
Permit for this project, the October 8 Staff Report includes recomrended Conditions of
Approval.
Commissioner Emling noted the major concerns at the Site Development Cmmittee were regarding
the design of the structure as it is at the maximum on both the allowed development area
and floor area, noting concerns over future property owners who may wish to have some type
of outdoor living area, such as a pool, deck, walks, which they could not obtain without
a variance.
Cainissioner Struthers questioned if this structure followed the contours?
ktir. Ekern informed Camtission the structure does not follow the contours, and noted the slopes
over 148 are to be step on contour which this structure does not do.
The Public Hearing was then opened.
Mr. Wendell Roscoe, Tepa Way, informed Commission that this structure does follow the contours
and does fit the lot, noting it does not go over the ridgeline and noted that this is not a
lot which saneone would want to place a pool on. Mr. Roscoe requested approval of the subject
design based on conditions as listed in the Staff Report and informed Cannission that the
proposed color is soft brown tones. Mr. Roscoe added that because of the Twin's Ordinances
the structure is not conducive to decks as it does not allow enough roan in height, etc., and
coverage necessary for a residence.
Ccn.'ssioners explained to Mr. Roscoe the changes to the zoning ordinances were to aoccmTodate
smaller lots with smeller houses which would also take in to consideration a careful design
which would allow for residence and amenities.
Ccu iissioner Fiding noted that one concern raised at the Site Developnent Comtittee meeting,
was that the neighbors felt the house was too close to the property line. Mr. Roscoe noted
that the house is located in the middle of the lot, and if they moved it back it would be
even more visible and larger to the neighbors view.
Ccumissioner Struthers suggested that the structure be dug more into the hillside thereby
reducing the visibility from off-site, and could the 27' tower be cut down? Mr. Roscoe
indicated that if the tower were removed it takes away from the design of the structure, and
( suggested that the air space counted toward floor area be removed from the Town's Ordinances
krss it causes hardship to the applicant in designing their residences.
Mr. Ekern informed Catmlissioners that this lot does require a step on contour, noting this
steps across the lot not dawn.
-9-
Cummissioner Stutz asked Mr. Roscoe if he would be willing to cora back to the Cuaaission
with a model of the residence on the lot?
Mr. Roscoe indicated he would not and would not know where to have one made.
The Public Hearing was than closed.
Commissioners reviewed the proposed structure noting concerns over visibility of the
structure from I-280; structure does not step don hillside as required by Ordinance;
structure is at the maximum allowed development area and floor area.
PUTION SECONDED AND CARRIED: Moved by Struthers, secanded by Patmore and passed unanimously
to continue the lands of Eyvazov, Lot #30 Dawson Drive for redesign of the proposed
structure, suggesting that the applicant: 1) follow the step on contour ordinance; 2)
allow more development area for outdoor living; and 3) lower the proposed house height
as it is highly visible from I-280.
Lands of Goldstein, File #VAR 21-87, 12995 W. Sunset Drive, Request for Variance to
exceed the Maximum development area for the lot for swimming pool and deck (Not
requesting Site Development Permit at this time)
Ms. Lytle referred to Staff Report dated October 8, 1987 informing Commission that the
applicant received a zoning permit for a new residence on September 7, 1983 and site
development permit on September 20, 1933, noting at that time plans indicated a swimming
pool was proposed, however, the site development permit letter specifically stated that
the pool was not included in the approval. At that time, Ms. Lylte noted that the lot
was allowed 7,000 sq.ft. of development area due to grandfather clause provision, at that
time the applicant had sufficient remaining development area to construct the future pool,
however, with the adoption of Ordinance #305, the property now and the proposed project
�, exceeds the allowed development area. Ms. Lytle noted that staff maintains that the
necessary findings, per Section 10-1.1107 (b) are not supportable. noting there is an
area of the lot which has been graded for a swimming pool, and due to the relative location
of this property, the pool would have no significant visual and aesthetic impact on
surrounding property owners, however, there are many other lots in the community with a
similar pool site, but insufficient PIDA to accoundate the amenity. Ms. Lytle noted staff
recommends :that the Planning Commission deny the variance request to exceed the Maximum
Development Area for the lot for reasons as listed in the October 8, 1987 Staff Report.
Commissioner Patmore informed Commission that this application should be processed through
the City Council rather than the Planning Ccmnission, due to their actions taken on variance
requests for Lin on Dawson Drive and Reed on Robleda, which were both based on the same type
of circumstance and were denied by the Planning Commission but approved by the City Council.
The Public Hearing was then opened.
Mr. Goldstein, 12998 W. Sunset Drive, informed Commission they constructed the -residence
in 1984 and at that time had enough room left for a swimming pool and have since graded the
area. Mr. Goldstein referred to the Reed variance which was approved by the City Council
on Robleda (attached to the October 8th staff report for Commissioners review), noting based
on that decision, Mr. Goldstein indicated this variance request should also be approved.
Mr. Goldstein further noted that none of the oak trees will be removed.
The Public Hearing was then closed
((
moi ssioners discussed the proposed variance request, referred to the Reed variance
\repproved by the City Council, and based on information provided felt a variance request
could be approved based on the excessive driveway which uses a great deal of development area;
the steepness of the property reducing the allowed development area; lack of visibility of
the proposed structure; mature landscaping for screening; and the property is rural in
character.
10 -
Commissioners raised concern over the location of the hot tub to the front of the
property, noting they could not approve this location, informing the applicant the
swimming pool and decking could be approved, and he should look into incorporating the
hot tub into the swimming pool design.
[
MOTION SS'CONDED AND CARRIED: Moved by Carico, seconded by Kaufman and passed by the
following roll call vote to approve the Iands of Goldstein, File #VAR 21-87, 12995
W. Sunset Drive, toexceed the maximum development area for the lot for a swimming pool
and deck, based on the ability to meet the required six findings per Municipal Code
Section 10-1.1107 (b) because of the excessive amount of developnent area used for the
driveway, the steepness of the lot, lack of visibility of the proposed structures from
off-site views, existing mature landscaping and subject lot is rural in charater the six
required variance findings can be favorably mt. The Commissioners approved this subject
variance request based on the hot tub shown on the plans not be approved, and should be
incorporated into the swimming pool area to the back of the residence.
PDI., CALL:
AYES: Commissioners Carico, Rftling, Struthers, Stutz and Acting Chairman Kaufman
' NOES: None
ABSTAIN: Commissioner Patmore
G. NEW BUSIIgSS:
1. Lands of Pickett, 24555 Bella Iadera Drive, Site Development Conditions relating to
retaining walls
Mr. Ekern referred to Staff Report dated October 8, 1987 informing Commission this is
in response to a neighbor ccoplaint regarding the color of the proposed retaining walls, noting
staff has investigated the existing permits issued and find that there is a conflict in
conditions of the site development permits issued. In March 1986, the Pickett's applied
�for permit to work on the walls at the front and immediate side of the property, noting
no conditions for color were placed on these walls. In August 1986 Mr. Pickett received
zoning and site development permit to continue the retaining walls around his property,
noting the condition at that time was to construct the walls and color shallbe earth tones
to blend naturally with the surroundings, noting he was also required to landscape the
walls from off-site views. In December 1986 h)r. Pickett received Site Development Permit
for swimming pool and the completion of the retaining wall system, noting the condition
at this time was merely a recommendation to color the walls earth tones, and a landscape
plan was required for this phase of the project. In August 1987 Mr. Pickett presented his
landscape plan for the swimming pool area, at that time the Committee required that he
plant certain trees and post a $1,000 landscape bond. Mr. Ekern inforoed Commission that
the issue of the color of the proposed retaining walls was discussed at some length with
the applicant, and they were noticed that the Town has great concerns over highly reflective
colors and materials, however, the Pickett's have long contended that the painting of the
walls to match their residence is in keeping with the architectural integrity of the site,
and noted that the site development committee during review of the swimming pool tacitly
acknowledged this situation by recommending and not requiring the earth tone walls. Mr.
Ekern recommended that after mmerous converstions with Mr. Pickett and an exchange
of letters and several site visits, the Commission should rel$vethe required earthtone
condition of the August 4, 1986 Site Development Permit, and closely examine the
required landscaping to determine the acceptability of the mitigation effort, noting if
more landscaping is required, the Commission should take appropriate action.
Mr. Ken Pastroff, Owen Companies, informed Ccxmdssion that this subject is closely related
to a house they will be bringing in for approval, questioning if we sell the house painted
a certain color and the owner cotes in later and wants to repaint, are these any ordinances
�gainst this? What about existing residences? Is the Town going to require that ham owners
owe in to Town for approval of repainting their older existing hares?
-11 -
Mrs. Carol Gottlieb, 24290 Summerhill Drive, informed Commission that this property
is highly visible, noting that the Town should not have approved these retaining walls at all
in this design, noting they do not meet the site development ordinance and is not in
keeping with the existing area. Mrs. Gottlieb stressed the importance of the newly adopted
site development ordinance, noting there is a Planning Commission who is under oath to
abide by the ordinances, noting if you do not wish to abide by the ordinances then there
should not be a Planning Commission.
Ms. Lytle informed Commission she could very much like to contact Mr. Pickett to discuss
the color of the proposed retaining walls, noting she would very much like to see the wall
toned down.
Cammissionersrconcurred that the Town Planner should contact Mr. Pickett to see if they
could be swayed to paint the walls earth tone or similar and see how the landscaping they
are required to install helps mitigate the views of the wall from off site.
The next item is taken out of order -to allow attendance by the applicant.
H. OLD BUSINESS:
1. Lands of Limbard, 13027 La Barranca, Geologist Condition
Mr. Ekern informed Commission at the time of conditioning the site Development Permit
for the arbards approval for barn and loft, it was stated that the Tuan Geologist
conditions were to be met. Mr. Ekern noted that this was a last minute addition to
the conditions as recamended by staff, noting the plans had been sent to the Geologist
for his review as a standard practice for Conditional Use Permits, however earlier the
City Engineer had waived specific requirement for Geologist review, noting the Engineer
had waived the requirement due to the fact that the -structure was not proposed as a
habitable site. Mr. Ekern recommended that the condition of the site development permit
not be amended to eliminate the requirement of a soils investigation and report, however,
the condition could be amended to state that the report and the subsequent requirements
or recommendations is to be to the satisfaction of either the City Engineer or the
Director of Public works.
MOTION SECONDED AND CARRIED: Moved by Patmore, seconded by Stutz, and passed by the
following roll call vote to delete condition #6 of the Site Development Permit conditions
for the Lands of Lunbard, 13027 Ia Barranca.
ROLL CALL:
AYES: Commissioners Carico, Doling, Patmore, Stutz and Acting Chairman Kaufman
IDES: None
ABSTAIN: Commissioner Struthers
G.
NEW BUSINESS:
2.
Parameters of projects
to be
seen at the
Site Development Committee
Level
Mr. Ekern referred to Staff Report dated October 8, 1987, informing Ccnmission there has
been some concern on the part of the Cammissioners and general public that a strict
interpretation of the height ordinances as it relates to the determination of the level
of site development review is cluttering the committee meetings and causing unnecessary
expense on the part of the resident/applicant. Mr. Ekern recommended that projects such as
bay windows falling under the constraints of the fifteen foot height clause be dealt with
administratively, if new area of either floor or development area be less than 30 sq.ft.
(( PASSED BY CONSENSUS: It was passed by consensus of the Planning Commissioners to allow
%,�itaff to handle administratively skylights, bay windows, green house windows and chimneys.
-12-
3. Policy Statement on Structural Stwinmming Pool Plans
Mr. Ekern referred to Staff Report dated October 8, 1987 informing Commission that the
kl site development cmmittee is presently operating under the policy of not issuing a
w site development permit for swimming pool unless structural pool plans are included in
the application. Mr. Ekern noted that this requirement is not only expensive for the
applicant, but also cluttering our files with boilerplate structural plans. Mr. Ekern
further noted that the building department requires submittal of the structuralpool plans
prior to issuance of building pe*m;ts, recommending that the Commission rescind the
existing policy of requiring structural pool plans for swimming pools be included in the
site development packet, if such a policy has been formalized; if there is no formal
Policy statement, then that should be made clear at this time,
PASSED BY CONSENSUS: It was passed by consensus to delete the requirement of submission
ET structural pool plans (boiler plate) to the review of the Site Development Committee
as they are a requirement of submittal for issuance of Building Permit.
4. Site Development Committee Meeting Cancellation
Mr. Ekern referred to Staff Report dated October 8, 1987 infoxming Commission that due to
Christmas Holidays and the generally slow nature of the season and the proposed absence
of the Director of Public Works, the Site Development Committee Meetings of December 22
and 29, 1987 shall be cancelled. Mr. Ekern noted if for some reason, there is a flurry
of development proposals in November, we will work to accomodate prior to those cancelled
meetings, however, since we sould be in the middle of the rainy season, with no immediacy
for major projects, there should be no hardship on the applicant.
PASSED BY CONSENSUS: It was passed by consensus to cancel the December 22 and 29, 1987
Site Development Committee dates.
I
5. Planning Commission Meetings Dates for November meetings
As per report dated October 9, 1987 from the Planning Secretary, staff recommends
Thursday, November 12, 1987 be scheduled as replacement for the Wednesday, November
11, 1 987 date which is Vet2rans Day (Holiday); and traditionally the Planning Comnission
has cancelled the meeting the night before Thanksgiving.
h%YPION SECONDED APED CARRIED: Moved by Patmore, seconded by Struthers and passed
Umanamously to set the noeting date for Thursday, November 12, 1987 at 7:30 P.M.;
and cancel the Wednesday, November 25, 1987 meeting.
6. Policy Determination on Mail Box Pillars - Commissioner Stutz
PASSED BY CONSENSUS: It was passed by consensus to continue this item to the next
Agenda to allow staff to prepare a Staff Report.
H. OLD BUSINESS:
2. Further Anaylsis of Land Use Regulations Implications of Nolan vs. California
Coastal Commission
Ms. Lytle referred to Staff Report dated October 6, 1987, informing Commission attached
to the Staff Report is an analysis of the two recent Supreme Court cases on the land
Use Regulations, noting this is provided by the People for Open Space/rYeenbelt Congress,
( tis item is primarily for Commissioners education and information. Staff recommends
t the site development letters begin to include additional language docmm�enting the
nature and extent of the burden created by the proposed developmment and the way in which
a proposed condition is related to the burden for any conditions which are not standard.
Ms. Lytle noted in these instances, it is best if formal findings are drafted and included
into the file. Ms. Lytle further noted that if you anticipate recommending the imposition
-13 -
of an extraordinary requirement or enaction, it would be best to individually contact
staff ahead of the meeting to allow us to prepare findings, either that or the meeting
should be continued to allow for proper documentation.
3. Camissioner Struthers informed Crnmission that Thursday, October 15th the Board
of Directors for Hidden Villa are meeting; further noting they have dropped their
Use Permit application on file with Santa Clara County.
There being no further new or old business, the meeting was adjourned at 11:20 P.M.
Respectfully submitted,
Leslie Mullins
Planning Technician
ON,