Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutItem 7.2Minutes of a Regular Meeting DRAFT Town of Los Altos Hills PLANNING COMMISSION 24, 2005, 7:00 p.m. -Purpose Room, 25890 Fremont Road cc: q -J I . ROLL CALL AND PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE The Planning Commission regular meeting was called to order at 7:00 p.m. in the BuIlis School Multi -Purpose Room. Present: Chairman Kems, Commissioners Collins, Carey & Clow Absent: Commissioner Cottrell Staff: Carl Cahill, Planning Director; Debbie Pedro, Senior Planner; Leslie Hopper, Project Planner; Lam Smith, Planning Secretary 2. PRESENTATIONS FROM THE FLOOR Roger Spreen, Open Space Committee Chair, addressed the Commission indicating that they had before them the recently published brochure "A Guide to Understanding Conservation Easements" that had been prepared by the Open Space Committee of 2004-05. Spreen explained that it had been written for informational purposes for residents and designed in a question and answer format to be used by people interested in the subject. It is a concise and informative look at the purpose and value of volunteer conservation easements in the Town. Chairman Kerns suggested putting the information on the Town web site and include it in the "New Residence" packet. 3. PUBLIC HEARINGS 3.1 LANDS OF SINDHU & BERTRAND, 27060 Old Trace Lane (175-04-ZP- SD); A request for a Site Development Permit for a 6,880 square foot tennis court (staff -Debbie Pedro). The Planning Director stated that staff had received comments from a neighbor that are really unrelated to this proposal with regard to security cmeras on the Sindhu/Bertrand property. Staff did evaluate the situation and did not feel there was my public nuisance to follow up on. He asked the Commission to review this application separate from the security camera issue. Planning Commission Minutes DRAFT February 24,2005 Page 2 Staff introduced this item by presenting a brief overview of the project and the staff report. The adjacent neighbors at 27076 Fremont Road are requesting that additional screening be provided at the north end of the tennis court. The applicant is proposing to transplant the 12" heritage oak tree to the north end of the tennis court to fill in the space between the 48" and 14" eucalyptus trees. The applicant has also provided a landscape screening plan for landscaping wound the perimeter of the tennis court. OPENED PUBLIC HEARING Mr. Sindhu, 27060 Old Trace Lane was available for questions. Commissioner Collins referred to the offer to screen the west side of the tennis court by moving the 12" oak tree stating there may be a better solution. She asked if oak trees actually live when planted in-between eucalyptus trees. She walked behind the Cranston and Kawasaki properties and felt that if there were a length of shrubs at least along the 4 foot fence it would offer a little more screening for the neighbors and possibility some sound reduction. John Aldridge, project landscape architect, stated that the oak tree to be transplanted will be as close to a eucalyptus tree as it is currently. They always planned on transplanting that tree because it would have to be removed during construction of the tennis court. They could put the oak tree closer to the property line, moving it away from the eucalyptus trees. Kim Cranston, 27080 Fremont Road, felt there was not enough proposed vegetated screening to mitigate the visual and sound impacts that a tennis court will create. He further discussed not only the impact of the tennis court but the accumulative impact of this proposed tennis court on top of all the other impacts of the development on the applicant's property which resulted in the removal of a significant mount of vegetated screening, on both the applicants property and his property which has not been adequately replaced. He further discussed the security cameras that have been installed in the trees that provide views onto his property and home and onto the neighbor's properties ( Kawasaki and Owen). He provided a picture of one of the cameras that was pointed toward his house. He can see the camera from his back yard and living room. Other cameras have a clear view of their guest home, the neighboring lot they own, and the Kawasaki and Owen homes. Bob Porallis, who manages the property at 27040 Old Trace Lane who is also affected by the cameras is head of security at e -bay. Mr. Sindhu allowed Bob Porallis to inspect the cameras. Mr. Porallis shared his concerns regarding an invasion of privacy caused by these cameras indicating there was a simple, inexpensive solution. The transparent housing around the cameras could be painted or otherwise covered so the carneras cannot see beyond the applicarifs property line. They have notified the applicants of their concerns with no response. Last week they delivered a letter to the City Manager regarding the cameras calling them a nuisance under the Los Altos Hills Municipal Code requesting action by The Town to abate this nuisance. He received an e-mail response from Debbie Pedro indicating that the security cameras were not in violation of the Town's Municipal Code. He asked the Commission, on behalf of he and his wife and their neighbors, what was the best way to resolve this situation: 1) Appeal staffs response that the cameras are not a nuisance; 2) Decision; table the item until they have concluded their Planning Commission Minutes DRAFT February 24, 2005 Page 3 appeal; and/or 3) Consider the accumulative impact of all development on the applicant's property. He questioned the appeal process if the application is approved which was answered by the Planning Director (usually 10 days for this type of application). Sandy Humphries, Environmental Design Committee, discussed the issue of moving (transplanting) the oak tree suggesting instead replacing it with three smaller oak trees (15-20 gallon) between the eucalyptus trees with a few shrubs between them. This may give better screening for the neighbors. Chairman Kerns indicated an area outside of the walk way may be a better location. Byron Mellberg, Palo Alto, applicanfs attorney, working with the applicants for over five years. He stated that this was not the forunt for discussing security cameras. They respectively disagree with comments made by Mr. Cranston. If there is a time and place to discuss the issue, they will. He felt the applicants have gone out of their way to accormnodate the neighbors. John Aldridge, project landscape architect, stated that they may have to remove some trees to accommodate the recommended three oak trees. Also they plan to plant shrubs that will grow to 10 to 12 feet in height to be taller than the fence and denser than an oak tree. It would be easy to plant three more oak trees. The shrubs that were planted last year were 15 gallon sin when put in. It appears they grow a foot a year. CLOSED PUBLIC HEARING Commissioner Collins agreed that consideration of the security cameras is not part of the decision to be made. She asked that the applicants consider working more closely with the Cranstons to resolve the issue. She liked Sandy Humphries' suggestion regarding using three small oak trees instead of one although she was not sure it would be enough. She thought they needed shrubs not trees. Commissioner Carey felt the application was reasonable and felt the landscape screening plan would be adequate in time. He would leave it up to the applicant's as to whether they transplant the oak tree or not The security carnera issue is separate from this application. In reviewing the conditions of approval, he would recommend increasing the landscape deposit amount. Commissioner Clow concurred. Chairman Kerns agreed with Commissioner Collins regarding working with the neighbors regarding the security camera issue. He felt they should approve the application. They could modify condition 45, "replanted or replaced by three 15 gallon oak trees" closer to the property line. He was okay with the requested $5,000 landscape deposit but would support a larger amount. The Planning Director supported Sandy Humphries suggestion (combination of trees and shrubs). Regarding the landscape deposit, $15,000 was suggested. Planning Commission Minutes DRAFT February 24, 2005 Page 4 MOTION SECONDED AND PASSED BY CONSENSUS: Motion by Commissioner Carey, seconded by Commissioner Clow and passed by consensus to approve a Site Development Permit for a 6,880 square foot tennis court, subject to the conditions of approval in Attachment 1, with the following additions/changes: #7, increase the landscape deposit to $15,000; and #5, give the applicants the option of abiding by that condition or replacing the 12" oak with three 15 gallon oak trees. Whichever choice the applicant makes, they should be located outside of the walk way rather than between the Eucalyptus trees, Lmids of Sindhu & Bertrand, 27060 Old Trace Lane. The process for appeal was discussed. 3.2 LANDS OF MAD MANOR 11 LLC (Bruce Askari, Purissima Lift Project, LLQ 27641 Purissima Road (95-03-ZP-SD-GD-IS-ND); Negative Decimation and Site Development Permit to allow the construction of a sanitary sewer main, an associated connecting maintenance road for the proposed line, a 100 -foot -long bridge for the road and sewer line to span Deer Creek, and a sediment detention basin (staff -Leslie Hopper). Staff introduced this item by reviewing the staff report. The project involves the extension of an existing sewer line and construction of a maintenance road. There will also be a detention basin to allow for sedimentation which is the means of protecting the water quality of the creek. The purpose of the extension is to provide sewer service to the homes on La Crests which are currently on septic tanks. She stated that the maintenance road is only to provide access for service of the sewer line. A bridge would be included in the project based on a modified railroad flat car which is a cost effective way to provide a bridge. The bridge is 14 feet wide but the abutments are farther apart in order to allow for future expansion to a two lane bridge if and when it becomes desirable (at some point, this whole parcel may be subdivided). She fell the main issue was environmental protection per Code. She discussed grading and drainage noting the drainage has been addressed by a re -design at the request of the Santa Clara Valley Water District. She noted an amendment to Condition #20 stating that she and the Planning Director met with Mr. Askari this afternoon discussing several conditions, agreeing to this modification. Usually they require dedication of a sanitary sewer easement prior to issuance of a building permit. In this particular case, they agreed that the timing was not going to be feasible because the elderly property owner was reluctant to grant the easement at this time. In discussion with the City Engineer, they determined that the easement could be granted later in the process before actual hookup of the sewer lateral. The Planning Director stated that the property owner is already doing the Town and the applicant a favor by allowing these improvements and the owner saw it as an unnecessary intrusion on her private property rights. Planning Commission Minutes DRAFT February 24, 2005 Page 5 Commissioner Carey asked if the property owner, who is not the applicant, is okay with this construction on her property but without the sanitary easement? The Planning Director stated that Mr. Askari is confident that he and his investors can obtain the permission at the right time (prior to connection). The property owner has authorized Mr. Askari to act on the application. OPENED PUBLIC HEARING Bruce Askari, 27830 Elena Road, discussed the project noting access is critical to maintaining the pumps. All the property owners who have given an easement will be able to connect. He farther discussed the design and vocith of the proposed bridge. Commissioner Clow asked why not just start out with a wider bridge. The Planning Director indicated if you are going to construct a road you need to also come in with a subdivision application. Coming in with a driveway is appropriate. They would allow the abutment to be wide enough to accommodate two Imes. This is only a single Ime, 14 foot wide bridge (service road). Subdivision improvements cannot be approved ahead of an actual subdivision approval. He felt they reached a good compromise with the amendment to condition #20. What is being approved is an abutment intended to accommodate a two Ime bridge. What you will actually see going across the creek is a single Ime bridge. Bruce Askari stated that anything they have done for the lift station has incorporated a 100 year life span. The existing driveway is asphalt. He wanted to make sure there was agreement regarding the bridge abutment which will be similar in width to the one next door on Samuel Lane. Bridge abutments are usually much bigger than the bridge itself. It was noted that the maps have not been modified for the extra width of the abutment. The Planning Director would not say "build whatever is on Samuel Lane". What you can say is that you can have bridge abutment sufficient to accommodate two way travel. The bridge is 14 feet wide (travel Ime) and the abutment shall be the mininumt necessary to accommodate two way travel. Mr. Askari stated that the lift station capacity is 550 homes. The catch basin for this sewer facility is the 1-280 corridor on both sides. He referred to condition #5 indicating that the property owner is asking to change "shall" to "may". The Planning Director indicated no to the request. Commissioner Clow suggested wording stating that the applicant should expect that the Town will require them, as a part of the subdivision, to remove the existing north driveway bridge over Deer Creek"...or "shall anticipate the removal"... The Planning Director indicated that they we trying to work with Mr. Askari and the property owner. It was suggested that anywhere in the conditions where it refers to the applicant, change it to "applicant/property owner". Commissioner Carey complimented Mr. Askari for organizing this project which provides much improvements to the Town. Planning Commission Minutes February 24, 2005 Page 6 CLOSED PUBLIC HEARING Commissioner Carey was in favor of the project and bringing sewer to as much of the Hills as possible. Bruce deserves a lot of credit as well as the neighbors and home owners. His only concern is forcing some conditions on the property owner. He would like some assurance that they we not asking an elderly lady for conditions on something that she may not want to do. It was noted that the property owner did sign the project application and she will be signing off on the conditions of approval. She will be involved in the building permit process as well. Commissioner Clow proposed additional language for condition #5 as follows: "At the time the property is proposed for subdivision or anytime the bridge is proposed to be widened in excess of 14 feet, the property owner shall have the expectation that as part of the subdivision process she may be required to remove the existing north driveway bridge over Deer Creek." He also commended Bruce for his hard work on the project which will help many people in Town. Commissioner Collins could not support the project with the vague language (can be expected). She could support "shall". Otherwise, she supports the project. Chairman Kerns was okay with the application. The motion should include a change to condition #3 to add "with abutment to accommodate two Imes of travel" as suggested earlier. Also a change to condition 96 to say "the property owner" rather than "the applicant". He was okay with the recommended wording provided by Conarnissioner Clow. Discussion ensued regarding using the word "shall" in condition #5. Commissioner Clow was okay with using "may" rather than "shall". MOTION SECONDED AND PASSED: Motion by Commissioner Clow, seconded by Commissioner Carey to approve the conditions of approval in Attachment 1, with the following additions/changes including staff recommended amendment to condition #20: 93, to add to the wording "with the bridge abutment to be the minimum necessary width to accommodate two Imes of travel"; #5, change "shall" to "may"; and #6, change "applicant" to "property owner". In general, where it is appropriate to change "applicant" to "property owner". AYES: Chairman Kerns, Commissioners Carey & Clow NOES: Commissioner Collins ABSENT: Commissioner Cottrell Planning Commission Minutes DRAFT February 24, 2005 Page 7 MOTION SECONDED AND PASSED: Motion by Commissioner Carey seconded by Commissioner Clow and passed recommending, based on the attached Initial Study, the City Council adopt the Mitigated Negative Declaration and Mitigation Monitoring Program in Attachment 9 for extension of the La Cresta sanitary sewer main and construction of an associated maintenance access road, a 100 -foot long bridge for the road and sewer line to span Deer Creek, and a sediment detention basin, Lands of Mad Manor II LLC, 11 LLC (Bruce Askari, Purissima Lift Project, LLQ; 27641 Purissimat Road; and Council approve the requested Site Development Permit, subject to the conditions of approval in Attachment 1, with the approved changes/modification to the conditions of approval. AYES: Chairman Kems, Commissioners Clow & Carey NOES: Commissioner Collins ABSENT: Commissioner Cottrell This project will be scheduled for a City Council public hearing 3.3 LANDS OF JFLP Partnership, 27361 Altairiont Road (200-04-lS-ND-TM- Gb); Negative Declaration and Tentative Map for a two -lot subdivision of a 2.82 -acre parcel (staff -Leslie Hopper). Staff introduced this item by reviewing the staff report. The Commission is asked to review and forward a recommendation to the City Council to adopt the Mitigated Negative Declaration and Mitigation Monitoring Program in Attachment 3; as well as the Tentative Map, based on the findings in Attachment 2 and subject to the conditions of approval in Attachment 1, as revised by staff. The single biggest issue relates to the trees as several trees have been partially removed including three Heritage Oaks. Since that time, staff has worked with the applicant and with the Environmental Design Committee to arrive at a mutually satisfactory mitigation for the trees which is mentioned in the Mitigation Measures 5. This involves the replacement of the three Heritage Oaks with three 84 -inch box oaks prior to recordation of the Final Map. The three smaller oaks shall be replaced when site development occurs on the new parcel, and a landscape maintenance deposit of $30,000 shall be required to ensue adequate establishment and maintenance of the replacement trees. There was a meeting with the applicants, Project Engineer and Staff, reviewing the conditions of approval. There were some modifications made to the conditions as a result of the meeting, involving conditions 423 (change in wording and #24 (deleted) and a note to clarify what the term "bonded for" means. She also reviewed the changes to the "Mitigation Measures", #5, reducing the amount of deposit from $30,000 to $10,000. The history of the damaged trees was discussed by the Planning Director (applicant working in good faith). OPENED PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED PUBLIC HEARING Planning Commission Minutes February 24, 2005 Page 8 1111M.1101 Commissioner Clow supported the application with the revised conditions and the change of deposit from $30,000 to $10,000. Commissioner Collins was in agreement. Commissioner Carey was also in agreement but would increase the deposit to be consistent with what was proposed on item 3. 1. Chairman Kerns also supported the application and the recommended $10,000 deposit as he felt it was not the applicanVs fault. MOTION SECONDED AND PASSED: Motion by Commissioner Collins and seconded by Commissioner Clow to recommend to the City Council, based on the Initial Study, adoption of the Mitigated Negative Declaration and the Mitigation Monitoring Program in revised Attachment 3, and review and forward a recommendation that the City Council approve the requested Tentative Map, based on the findings in Attachment 2 and subject to the conditions of approval in revised Attachment 1, Lands of JFLP Partnership, 27361 Altamont Road. AYES: Chairman Kerns, Commissioners Clow, Carey & Collins NOES: None ABSENT: Commissioner Cottrell This project will be scheduled for a City Council public hearing. 4. OLD BUSINESS -none 5. NEW BUSINESS -none 6. REPORT FROM THE CITY COUNCIL MEETING 6.1 Planning Commission Representative for February 17" ­cancelled 6.2 Planning Commission Representative for March 3'LCommissioner Cottrell 6.3 Planning Commission Representative for March 17� - Commissioner Carey 6.4 Planning Commission Representative for April 7� —Cormnissioner Kerns 7. APPROVAL OF MINUTES 7.1 Approval of January 27, 2005 minutes PASSED BY CONSENSUS: To approve the January 27,2005 minutes. 8. REPORT FROM FAST TRACK MEETING -none 9. REPORT FROM SITE DEVELOPMENT MEETING- FEBRUARY 15,2005 9.1 LANDS OF FONG, 11989 Rhos Ridge Road (248-04-ZP-SD); A request for a Site Development Permit for a 262 square foot addition (maximum height 13' 7-1/2") and interior remodel (staff -Debbie Pedro). Approved with conditions. Planning Commission Minutes February 24, 2005 Page 9 DRAFT 9.2 LANDS OF ZIRPOLO, 12675 Dianne Drive (139-04-ZP-SD); A request for a Site Development Permit for a landscape screening and erosion control plan (staff -Brim Froelich). Approved with conditions. 10. ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned by consensus at 8:35 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Lam Smith Planning Secretary