Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout09/08/1993kw Minutes of a Regular Meeting APPROVED Town of Los Altos Hills PLANNING COMMISSION Wednesday, September 8, 1993, 7:30 P.M. Council Chambers, 26379 Fremont Road cc: Cassettes #15-93 (4) 1. ROLL CALL AND PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE Planning Commission meeting was called to order at 7:30 p.m. in the Council Chambers at Town Hall. Present: Chairman Comiso, Commissioners Cheng, Ellinger, Schreiner, Sinunu, Stutz, & Takamoto Staff: Linda Niles, Town Planner; Jeff Peterson, City Engineer; Suzanne Davis, Assistant Planner; Lam Lonberger, Planning Secretary 2. PRESENTATIONS FROM THE FLOOR Persons wishing to address the Commission on any subject not on the agenda are invited to do so now. Please note, however, that the Commission is not able to undertake extended discussion or take action tonight on non-agendized items. Such items will be referred to Staff or placed on the agenda for a future meeting. None 3. CONSENT CALENDAR Items appearing on the Consent Calendar are considered routine and will be adopted in one motion, except for any item removed for separate consideration elsewhere on the agenda. The Chairman will ask the Commission and the audience for requests to remove these items. Ms. Niles stated the applicant for the Lands of Lohr, item 5.5, requested continuance to the September 22, 1993 meeting. MOTION SECONDED AND PASSED: Motion by Commissioner Ellinger, seconded by Commissioner Cheng and passed unanimously to continue this item. l7 Planning Commission Minutes APPROVED September 8, 1993 Page 2 MOTION SECONDED AND PASSED: Motion by Commissioner Ellinger, seconded by Commissioner Cheng and passed unanimously to continue the application to the September 22, 1993 or when it can be correctly re -noticed at the agreement of both Staff and the applicant. 4. REPORT FROM THE CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF SEPTEMBER 1 1993 4.1 The Planning Commission representative was Commissioner Schreiner. Items discussed: Adoption of resolutions authorizing execution of agreements for preparation of a supplemental EIR for Lands of Eshner and to establish a subcommittee of the Council (Dauber and Siegel); natural grade policy; Mary Stutz was appointed to the committee to review the State Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA); subcommittee level issues including setbacks, basements, grandfathering, three story facades, etc.; Packard subcommittee and Council approving in concept the proceeding with the process of an application for a charitable nonprofit foundation headquarters office as an allowed use in the residential zone in the Town with significant restrictions; Lands of Puri was continued to the next meeting at the request of the applicant; Lands of Fondahl's request for a variance was denied; Lands of Ahrens approved with additional conditions including daily monitoring of oak trees; Housing Element status. 4 Commissioner Cheng will be the Planning Commission representative for the `, September 14, 1993 City Council meeting. `7 Planning Commission Minutes APPROVED September 8,1993 Page 3 5. PUBLIC HEARINGS 5.1 LANDS OF ADDISON, 13470 Carillo Lane; A request for a Site Development Permit for an Addition, Remodel and Driveway Modification (continued from July 28,1993 meeting and from the 7:00 p.m. site visit by the Planning Commission). Ms. Niles stated there was nothing further to add to the staff report, however, the applicant prepared a slide presentation for the Planning Commission including photographs and a landscape plan. Chairman Comiso stated the public hearing would be opened with the understanding that many of the neighbors were present at the last meeting and asked that information presented not be repeated and comments be limited to two minutes. OPENED PUBLIC HEARING Ray Finn, 13428 Carillo Lane, neighbor, stated there were five two story houses within two lots of the Addison house. They have all been built right into the hillside and were hardly noticeably. He felt this house was already obtrusive because of the height on the L knoll and the present plans would add to the objectionable appearance. Stan Thomas, 13385 La Cresta, stated the house could use a lot of help and felt the developer was producing the help. He felt the landscaping would reduce the bulk along with the choice of color. The new project would be an improvement to the existing house. Larick Hill, architect for the project, presented a slide presentation showing different views from the roof of the neighborhood in relationship to the story poles. He described proposed landscaping to screen the project. He also presented a floor plan, color schemes, and profiles of existing house compared to the new house. The existing plantings inside and outside of the property line would remain to hide the wall. Commissioner Schreiner stated on her site visit she had paced off from the property line 30' in and felt it was apparent they were able to put a one story element coming from the one story element already there, however, Mr. Hill stated it was a possibility but that area was the only private flat area available for outdoor living. Al Janklow, 13464 Carillo Lane, neighbor, expressed his concern with the dominant house and felt the slides did not depict the view from his house. He would like to see the developer try to blend more with the hill, blend more with the neighborhood and go down the hillside, if necessary, for his square footage or to spread out the house as the Commission mentioned at the previous meeting. He felt there was not much change from the previous presentation Planning Commission Minutes APPROVED September 8, 1993 Page 4 CLOSED PUBLIC HEARING Commissioner Ettinger had listened to the tapes from the previous Planning Commission meeting, read the previous minutes and visited the site. His observations were as follows: it is definitely a ridge today; no, they would probably not permit a two story house to be built on a ridge; the house is already there and the building does need help. He felt the architect and the landscape architect were doing a good job of trying to build something and hide it. He felt it would take years to mitigate this property with the mature trees needed. He has rarely seen so much opposition to a project. He discussed the General Plan and the sensitive site. He was concerned with moving forward with the second story. He liked the design, not the second story. Commissioner Schreiner commented the ordinances state on a highly visible lot, a one story house may be required. She agreed with Commissioner Ellinger in that if this house came in today, she doubted they would allow a two story. Just adding 500 sq. ft. is not the point. Two stories are already there and very visible and what the applicant is doing is expanding the visibility. The color and mitigation proposed might help, however, she did not feel they should start out with a building with the intent they can mitigate with landscaping. She questioned whether the resident who would be living in this house would really want this amount of screening which would block their views. She found it difficult to vote for this project. Commissioner Takamoto liked the house. He did not feel a new two story house would be approved, however, there is already a two story house there. The landscaping is in very bad shape. The neutral colors help the house and he liked the house design and felt it would be a big improvement to the present house. Commissioner Sinunu had concerns with the house on a knoll. He felt the house was an improvement to the lot. He was very impressed with the opposition and appreciated the input. Chairman Comiso discussed the project agreeing it was already a two story house, and visible from far away, however, other properties were visible from this project. The project was less than a 5% increase and she felt the house was changed very little. Some mitigation would be required fitting it into the site. Commissioner Cheng agreed. Commissioner Schreiner stated what she is hearing is that this was the only way the house could be designed to look attractive which she disagreed with. She felt there was enough room on the property to put a very attractive one story element and try to go along with what the Town is trying to do, which is to build low profile houses which blend into the setting. Chairman Comiso agreed with everything Commissioner Schreiner stated, however, ( V this house is already there and the applicant is working within the perimeter of what is Planning Commission Minutes APPROVED September 8, 1993 Page 5 there. She discussed outside living area and what is given up by spreading a project out from setback to setback. MOTION SECONDED AND PASSED: Motion by Commissioner Takamoto and seconded by Commissioner Cheng to approve the application as conditioned by staff. Chairman Comiso asked the applicant if he agreed with the conditions of approval. Shawn Addison, 1660 Oak Avenue, Menlo Park, applicant, discussed meeting with Dr. Janklow regarding his concerns about the drainage swale down the shared property line. They agreed to follow the recommendations of the geotechnical report which he felt was shot down by Staff. Mr. Peterson discussed this condition stating usually they do not concentrate drainage in Town, so he will review the full drainage plan at the time building permit are submitted. Commissioner Schreiner asked that the landscape plan be returned to the Planning Commission for approval. Condition 4 addresses this issue. Chairman Comiso suggested "conceptual landscape plan, etc" be removed from Condition 4. L MOTION AMENDED, SECONDED AND PASSED: Motion by Commissioner �/ Takamoto and seconded by Commissioner Cheng to approve the application as conditioned by staff with a change to Condition 4 to read 'Prior to final inspection and release of occupancy permits a final landscape planting plan must be submitted to and approved by the Planning Commission." AYES: Chairman Comiso, Commissioners Simmu, Takamoto & Cheng NOES: Commissioners Ellinger, Schreiner & Stutz This item will appear on the City Council consent calendar for September 14, 1993. Planning Commission Minutes September 8,1993 Page 6 APPROVED 5.2 LANDS OF PENNE/CRANSTON, 27080 Old Trace Lane and Fremont Road; A request for a Site Development Permit for a New Residence, Pool and Attached Second Unit. Ms. Niles stated there were no additions to the staff report Commissioner Schreiner asked staff why the property is not accessing off of Old Trace Road. Ms. Niles stated there was a condition on the subdivision map that prohibited access onto Old Trace Road except for the back lots. Commissioner Schreiner asked how many trees would be removed and Ms. Niles noted six trees would be removed. Commissioner Stutz discussed the access off of Fremont and felt it safer accessing off of Old Trace Road. She asked if the Planning Commission denied them any entrance onto Fremont Road, what would the applicant be able to do. Mr. Peterson stated if the Town would not approve entrance onto Fremont and they are prohibited by covenant to access from Old Trace, they would virtually have no access. It would become a legal issue as to whether or not a particular covenant could be overturned. Kim Cranston, 2046 Emerson Street, Palo Alto, applicant, stated when the property was subdivided it was found that all of Old Trace Lane fell entirely on the property of Mr. Seiger to the north of this property. When the property was subdivided, in order to get access to the back lots of the subdivision, it was necessary to get an agreement from Mr. Seiger allowing that. The agreement provided that access but also stated access would not be allowed from the front lots because it had potential access off of Fremont. He had discussed this with an attorney friend who stated it was enforceable and did not think there was anything they could do. The applicant's choice would be to access off of Old Trace Road. Commissioner Stutz discussed the right-of-way and possibly Mr. Cranston could dedicate a 30' right-of-way on his side of the property and come down his own right-of- way. Mr. Cranston was not sure how this would work as Mr. Seiger's agreement stated he cannot use his 30'. Old Trace is a private road. Mr. Seiger had sent in a letter of support for the project as long as there were was not an access from the property to Old Trace Lane. OPENED PUBLIC HEARING Bob Owen, 445 S. San Antonio Road, pointed out there were three lots facing Fremont and all three could potentially egress/ingress from Fremont. The original subdivision kW done by R. E. Cameron, were three lots in front and three lots in back. Planning Commission Minutes September 8, 1993 Page 7 APPROVED Commissioner Stutz suggested requiring a private road inside the right-of-way to one point and pull all three out together. Randy Seiger, 27087 Old Trace Lane, discussed the history of the subdivision and access agreed upon. They objected to the driveway off of Old Trace for safety. They were concerned about the road on their property and not concerned about traffic on Fremont. Old Trace Lane is a small road. Safety is a factor as it can be hazardous. Fremont Road is busy, however, people know it. Commissioner Ellinger discussed lots 6, 7 and 8 accessing off of Fremont. A second choice would be to have a driveway between the other two lots. A third choice would be Commissioner Stutz' suggestion putting in another road adjacent to Old Trace on the applicant's lot which would be his driveway. Mr. Cranston stated they were trying to minimize the impact on the trees and a second parallel road may destroy some of them. Commissioner Stutz felt a second road on Fremont would be better if they could not access off of Old Trace. CLOSED PUBLIC HEARING RE -OPENED PUBLIC HEARING The Commission further discussed options for access, safety, if the project would have to be redesigned with the addition of a driveway and the possibility of the removal of some of the trees. In looking at the subdivision map, Commissioner Schreiner suggested when the other two lots come in, possibly taking a dedication on both sides of the property line and just have one driveway serve those two lots, reducing access points from three to two onto Fremont. Commissioner Schreiner asked if the garage could be moved closer to the house, however, Mr. Cranston felt the garage acted as a buffer between the house and Fremont Road for sound and there was a concern for car fumes if the garage was closer. Commissioner Ellinger repeated the comment made by the applicant's architect stating if you put the driveway down in between the other two lots it would enter Fremont directly across from Shady Oaks or very close to that point. It might not make too much of a visual impact and might be a good idea. This would leave Mr. Cranston free to build his driveway as designed on his lot essentially weaving in between the trees. Mr. Cranston questioned the requirements for Condition 5 regarding the landscaping L fir, plan. It was explained this was a standard condition and he may not need anything to Planning Commission Minutes APPROVED September 8, 1993 Page 8 mitigate the property. Commissioner Schreiner commented six trees were planned to be removed which will be required to be replaced. The landscaping plan should show the new location of the trees. His second concern was regarding Condition 14 and the pathway requirements. He had spoken to Carol Gottlieb and she indicated that her concern was that they liked the horse trail as it was, however, if it was not going to remain as is, they would like a Type IIB path. The horse trail is a condition of approval of the subdivision which is a native path installed across Old Trace Lane across the frontage of his lot behind the first row of trees. He did not know if anything more would be required. Les Earnest, Co -Chair, Pathway Committee, stated they were happy with the natural path wandering through the trees. Commissioner Stutz suggested not disking into a native path as well as into IIB path. Also, native paths should not move. She also stated Mr. Cranston's path was inside the Eucalyptus trees on his property along Fremont. Mr. Cranston questioned Condition 14 regarding a fence being required to be constructed to separate the path from the construction site. He felt this was an adequate request for the path along Fremont Road, however, the native trail was a distance away and he was not sure if it would be required there. Les Ernest responded stating he felt there would be no need for fencing of the native trail. He did feel there would be a small amount of grading needed to bring path toward Old Trace. CLOSED PUBLIC HEARING MOTION SECONDED AND PASSED: Motion by Commissioner Ellinger and seconded by Commissioner Stutz to modify Conditions 13 and 14 as follows: Condition 14, delete second and third sentences, replacing them with; "The current IIB pathway shall be repaired. The current natural pathway shall be maintained as a natural pathway on Old Trace Lane during the construction." Change Condition 13, second sentence, to read, "This plan shall address slope stabilization on all areas impacted by the grading included in the requested project and including the current natural pathway". AYES: Chairman Comiso, Commissioners Cheng, Ellinger, Schreiner, Simmu, Stutz & Takamoto NOES: None Commissioner Stutz discussed a similar situation regarding roads on Voorhees where there is a two road entrance which seems to be working. Staff did not have figures on accidents in that area. She would rather see the Old Trace entrance widened by another separate road right beside it and enter from that point rather than enter down the street another 75' or 100'. Planning Commission Minutes September 8, 1993 Page 9 APPROVED Further discussion ensued regarding road access. Commissioner Ellinger noted no one was objecting to the design of the house or where the driveway is shown on the chart. The owner would like to build it and reduce the number of trees removed if the driveway was moved all the way to the corner of the property line. There was no objection other than the Commission's concern with the possible safety issue. He suggested putting a shared driveway between the other two lots when they come in for public notice. Mr. Peterson read a few of the conditions which were placed on the subdivision which he felt confused the issue rather than clarifying it. It was noted that eight lots access off of Old Trace Road. Mr. Peterson noted that the Town Municipal Codes states a driveway services no more than two lots. When you go beyond two lots it is technically a street, be it a private street or a public street. Mr. Peterson mentioned another possibility which would be to have the City Attorney review the subdivision documents to see if there were any other options to access Old Trace Lane which would require a continuance. Commissioner Ellinger felt they did not need to waste City dollars to investigate the access covenant restricting access to Old Trace Lane. He suggested approving the application and letting the applicant investigate the easement, if desired. MOTION SECONDED AND PASSED: Motion by Commissioner Sinunu and seconded by Commissioner Ellinger to approve the application as conditioned and modified. AYES: Chairman Comiso, Commissioners Takamoto, Cheng, Ellinger, Schreiner & Sinunu NOES: Commissioner Stutz This item will appear on the City Council consent calendar for September 14, 1993. The Planning Commission took a five minute break at 9:30 p.m. Planning Commission Minutes September 8, 1993 Page 10 APPROVED 5.3 LANDS OF JONES, 27994 Via Ventana and 27886 Via Ventana; A request for a Parcel Map for a Lot Line Adjustment. Chairman Comiso stepped down from the hearing. Mr. Peterson introduced this item stating in October of 1988, a parcel map was recorded which subdivided the Jones' 4.6 acre parcel in the southern corner of Page Mill Road and Via Ventana into two parcels. At that time minimal improvements were conditioned to be constructed by the applicants, including the undergrounding of public utilities and the construction of a median opening in Via Ventana to provide a driveway location for Parcel 2. This would have required paving through the median area between a couple of oak trees. The applicants at that time entered into an agreement with the Town in the subdivision agreement to construct the improvements and instead of placing an improvement bond actually placed a lien on the property with the Town so the improvements could be accomplished. Since the parcel map was recorded, the applicants have requested several extensions of time for completion of the improvements due to financial reasons. It was Staff s understanding that the applicants are arranging with the potential buyer to have the improvements completed, and are relying on a future owner for completion of the improvements. Mr. Peterson stated the application in front of the Planning Commission proposes a lot line adjustment for a potential buyer and the potential buyer would cause the improvements to be done. Commissioner Ellinger asked what the total cost of the City mandated improvements and the time period required. Mr. Peterson stated that in the subdivision agreement, which is five years old, it gave an estimate of $60,000 for the under grounding of the power lines and $2,000 for the median opening construction. Both figures may have inflated some since then. This particular subdivision was not conditioned to be connected to sewer and it would be difficult to pump up from Page Mill. Commissioner Schreiner felt the plan was not complete and had asked Mr. Peterson previously to show where the conservation easements were on the plan, as this piece of property has a beautiful stand of oaks. She also requested information regarding the location of the pathway dedication. She thought Mr. Peterson had available an aerial map so they could see how the new proposed lot line impacts the trees. Mr. Peterson provided the Commissioners with the aerial photo blueprint as well as the approved tentative map showing the pathway easement as well as the conservation easement. Parcel 2 has not been sold as yet. OPENED PUBLIC HEARING Bill Kull, Giuliani & Kull, 20431 Stevens Creek Blvd., Cupertino, discussed the reasons �, for the lot line adjustment. He stated the proposed line better follows the existing Planning Commission Minutes September 8, 1993 Page 11 APPROVED topography and the topographic features of the land and includes and protects the 40" oak. He apologized for not including the conservation easement on the plan and would include it on the final parcel map. Mr. Kull requested this application be approved as conditioned by staff with the exception of Condition 1 adding, "All conditions of approval of the Jones subdivision of 1988 shall be complete prior to recordation of the parcel map "or bonded by the Civil Engineer"." The reason for the request was that they were not exactly sure what would be involved with PG&E or their scheduling and timing. If they do need to proceed with the recordation of the parcel map in order to facilitate funding, they want to take that route. Commissioner Schreiner discussed her concern with pushing the lot line down further into the trees. The one thing that is not apparent on the map was the location of all the trees. She asked when they flatten a pad, how many trees do they plan to remove. Mr. Kull responded they had no idea until they had some detailed site plans and could see where the trees are exactly located. Commissioner Schreiner believed on the original conditions of approval it stated great care should be taken to not take too many of the trees down. When speaking to former Planning Commissioners, they spent hours on this property placing the lot line so as many of these trees could be saved as possible. By changing the lot line, she felt they would impact a greater number of the trees. Mr. Kull did not feel the lot line would have any impact on which trees need to go or which trees need to be saved. This is only a line and does not indicate any location where a 4proposed building site would be. Commissioner Schreiner felt there were only a few fir' spaces on Parcel 2 where you would be able to put a house and if you have to observe the 30' setbacks, they are putting themselves in a very constrained position. Mr. Kull stated they were looking into trying to save as many trees as possible. As Jeff mentioned, they are looking into and have done detailed analyses of the possibility of connecting these properties to sewer to minimize septic tanks, leach fields, grading and operation and Mr. Kull thought they had a good solution how to sewer this property. Again, he mentioned these are site development issues, not lot line adjustment issues. He felt the lot line adjustment would not effect the saving or loosing of any particular oak trees. Commissioner Schreiner disagreed because it will push the development further into the trees. Mr. Kull further discussed possible proposed home sites. Commissioner Sinunu agreed fully with Commissioner Schreiner. He felt the only appropriate place to build a house was in the open space area about 30' from where the old lot line was and taking the lot line down 20' to 30' destroys that and forces the cutting down of oak trees that would otherwise not have to be cut down. He felt that they were penalizing that lot with no particular advantage to Parcel 1 by changing this lot line. Mr. Wood, 27888 Via Ventana, was not aware of the map for the property line adjustments, however, if they impact on the right-of-way between the Via Ventana tots and the Jones property, the top portion is his only access to the back of his lot. The kW Commission felt this would not impact his access. He had no objection to them Planning Commission Minutes APPROVED September 8, 1993 Page 12 10' building a house, only losing his access. Further discussion involved the shared easement not being a dedicated path and the lot line adjustment not changing the easement. Bob Stutz, 25310 Elena Road, Pathway Committee, discussed the easement and would like to retain this as a fire access road. Commissioner Schreiner thought they could not condition this lot line adjustment for a fire access road at this time, however, she felt it would be something they could do when the two parcels come in for site development. She felt it was a good issue to bring up so the owners would know what is being considered. Robin Knudson, 27999 Via Ventana, had concerns with the access, ingress/egress, that will go through the median where there are oak trees. She felt this access would destroy the oak trees; one oak being very uncommon in the area. Ms. Knudson provided the Commission with a drawing showing another way to prevent taking out the median section. Another concern was the section of the road on Via Ventana only being 12' and she felt there would be no way to make a clean turn in that section without going onto the bridal path and/or onto the Knudson property. The bridal path is an easement on the Knudson property. Another concern related to the Planning Commission allowing the applicant to postpone completing the required adjustments on the property, putting the responsibility onto a potential buyer. Ms. Knudson submitted written comments to the Commission. CLOSED PUBLIC HEARING Commissioner Ellinger summarized the comments presented: they have heard the owner would like to continue to own the large 44" oak; they would like the line to move closely following the topography of the land; there was a concern of what this does for pushing things back into the tree area; retain access to the fire access route; continue protection of the trees, in general the deciduous oaks; not to put off the improvements; protect the bridal path from construction vehicles; median and safety hazard. Commissioner Schreiner was also aware of the problem with the median access off Page Mill. She asked Mr. Peterson if he had any suggestions for another way to access this property. Mr. Peterson stated he had been out looking at the situation with the proposed median cut which was an already approved plan in file which he distributed to the Commission so they could review the details. The median cut would come within roughly 3' to 4' of the trunk of two large oaks; one 30" and one 40". Presently, there is pavement on two sides of those oaks. Cutting a median opening between the two oaks would place pavement on three sides, virtually covering the rooting all in one area. He shared Ms. `, Knudson's concern regarding the longevity of those oaks with the proposed median cut Planning Commission Minutes APPROVED September 8,1993 {4 Page 13 which was an approved part of the subdivision. One approach would be to strike the requirement that the median cut would be completed now and just have the applicant place a cash deposit with the Town such that this issue could be reviewed at site development. At that time all the potential driveway accesses could be reviewed and if they did not access the lower parcel from this area, the cash deposit could be returned to the applicant. This would allow the Commission and Council to review the driveway in conjunction with the actual site and might give the Town a chance to save those oaks. Commissioner Stutz discussed an alternate route coming in off the asphalt driveway that the Jones' are now using and the two houses up above them use which is further up Via Ventana. She further discussed the location on the plan. Mr. Peterson reminded the Commission that the application that is before the Planning Commission is a lot line adjustment. He suggested the Planning Commission not recommend the building of the median cut as part of the recommended approval of the lot line adjustment. In this way, they are not conditioning the project, only removing a portion of the condition. MOTION SECONDED AND FAILED: Motion by Commissioner Stutz and seconded by Commissioner Cheng to recommend approval of the lot line adjustment with the City Engineer's recommendation that they not recommend that they build the median cut as part of the recommended approval of the lot line adjustment. Mr. Peterson recommended the applicant make a cash deposit with the Town so that at a later date -if the Commission and Council decide that this is indeed where the driveway cut would be -this would pay for the median opening as opposed to pushing it onto an owner at the site development stage. The cost would be the engineer's estimate, equivalent to the cost of the median work. This recommendation was acceptable to the maker of the motion. AYES: Commissioners Stutz & Cheng NOES: Commissioners Schreiner, Sinunu, Takamoto & Ellinger ABSTAIN: Chairman Comiso This item will appear on the City Council consent calendar recommending denial for September 14,1993. Planning Commission Minutes September 8,1993 Page 14 APPROVED 4 5.4 LANDS OF TANAKA, 26020 New Bridge Drive; A request for a Site Development Permit for a Pool, Pool House, Landscape, Driveway Modification and Stable. Ms. Niles introduced this item stating a question came up regarding an obstruction to the path off of the site. The engineering technician went to the site and found there were two fenced areas which appear as though pedestrians could go through but not horses. Chairman Comiso discussed the obstruction on the pathway. This is across the Tanaka's driveway and prevents horses from continuing on down the path. She questioned if this was a legal obstruction. Ms. Niles stated, after investigation, they could not find if this was legal or not. What they found was that there were pathway easements that are dedicated on the property that this obstruction appears to be on. They could not tell from their site visit without doing a semi survey whether the obstruction was on the dedicated path or on the area that does not have a dedicated path on it. Further investigation is needed. Commissioner Schreiner questioned the figures in the staff report relating to floor area. The correct figure for floor area left is +917. She asked if the stable was shown in the right location. She also questioned the height of the gates and pillars. She thought they were being proposed 10' to 20' in from the road and they are 5' high. Ms. Niles stated the entry pillars are allowed at that point and the stable was in a new location. OPENED PUBLIC HEARING Jerry Tanaka, 26020 New Bridge Drive, applicant, commented on and objected to Condition 11 requesting a dedication of a 10' wide pathway easement along the southern property line. He discussed the shape of the property and objected to the pathway along his driveway leading to the house. They lose their privacy, which is not acceptable to them. He questioned whether a pathway should be part of the driveway. It is not like the path on the side of a property where you dedicate 10' for access behind screening. The pathway is proposed on the long part of the driveway and taking up a significant part of their property as an easement. He felt it was an imposition asking them to give 10' of easement along this long property line for a pathway. He also stated that at the wide, top part of their property which goes into the property behind them, the 10' is a culvert and people would have to walk around the culvert. Commissioner Ellinger asked Mr. Tanaka if he had any discussions regarding this condition prior to this evening and Mr. Tanaka responded no, they were not aware of this condition. Planning Commission Minutes APPROVED September 8,1993 Page 15 Mrs. Tanaka discussed the path and the barricade discussed earlier. She discussed the proposed pathway which would accomplish putting a pathway on all four sides of their neighbor's property. She presented letters from her neighbors strongly opposing this pathway. Since there is an alternate route for a path, there is no need to ask for a pathway along their driveway. Commissioner Stutz asked how she went from Quail Lane to her barn on her horse and from Orchard Hill Lane. Mrs. Tanaka responded she cannot use Quail Lane; from Orchard Hill Lane, she goes around to New Bridge. CLOSED PUBLIC HEARING Commissioner Ellinger discussed the broken process regarding how pathways are marked on maps prior to review. He would like the process reviewed and corrected. He felt the applicants had a valid concern with the proposed pathway. He felt Condition 11 should be deleted and if they could not go ahead with the application on this basis, it should be continued to properly design the pathway in this vicinity and bring it back. Commissioner Simmu asked when pathway is built in Los Altos Hills, does it require that it is available to pedestrians and horses. Commissioner Schreiner noted only if it is marked that way. She stated this particular section was marked "pedestrian only". Commissioner Stutz disagreed stating paths were multipurpose path with only a few paths marked bicycles only, pedestrians only. Generally speaking, a path dedication is for all three; bicycles, pedestrians, horses. When Mr. Johnson put in his path, he did it only on the agreement that he would not have any horses on his property. This is the reason for the barrier. Further discussion ensued regarding the location of the paths. The necessity of having a path in the requested area was discussed and the adjacent property at 26010 New Bridge having a path surrounding his property if this pathway was approved. Chairman Comiso discussed the importance of going back when problems or potential problems are found and ask what could have been done differently. She mentioned the drainage, the run-off from Golden Hill, the culvert coming down and how it effects the Tanakas property and what is being done. Mr. Peterson commented the Tanakas had shown him the drainage. They have gone to great pains to not perpetuate the problem by putting in additional pipe. 9N Planning Commission Minutes APPROVED September 8,1993 Page 16 4 MOTION SECONDED AND PASSED: Motion by Commissioner Ellinger and seconded by Commissioner Takamoto to approve the application as submitted, deleting Condition 11. AYES: Chairman Comiso, Commissioners Cheng, Ellinger, Schreiner, Sinunu, Stutz & Takamoto NOES: None This item will appear on the City Council consent calendar for September 14, 1993. 5.5 LANDS OF LOHR, 24001 Oak Knoll Circle; A request for a Site Development Permit for a New Residence, Pool, Spa and Tennis Court. This item has been continued to the September 22, 1993 meeting at the request of the applicant. 5.6 LANDS OF CIMERA, 25601 Chapin Road; A request for a Site Development Permit and Variance for a Remodel, Addition, Garage and Pool. Ms. Niles introduced this item stating the staff report mentioned there may not be any g trees removed. However, looking closer at the site plan, it appears there may be some Iv trees affected. Staff will watch those for the requirement of replacement. There were five Commissioners who did not walk the property due to two loose dogs and a locked gate. Commissioner Sinunu jumped the fence, however, did not spend much time on the property for the same reason. Driving around the property does not show the variance issue. Access should be available 10 days prior to the hearing. There was a consensus to continue the application as the Commission felt they did not have enough information without walking the property to do justice to the application. MOTION SECONDED AND PASSED: Motion by Commission Ellinger, seconded by Commissioner Schreiner and passed by consensus to continue this item to the September 22, 1993 meeting to provide the Planning Commission access to the property. Wm. Thompson, 13410 Burke Road, neighbor sharing the easement of the driveway coming into Burke Road. He liked the plans and only had a few concerns regarding the construction area. He requested trucks and materials come in off of Chapin and not up the easement. He discussed the proposed roof line, height and screening between the fence line and the bathroom and possibly by the pool. He felt it was an overall nice plan and supported the project. `7 Planning Commission Minutes APPROVED September 8, 1993 Page 17 5.7 LANDS OF TOWN OF LOS ALTOS HILLS, Purissima Road & Viscaino Road; A request for a Site Development Permit and Conditional Use Permit and Conditional Use Permit Modification for a Cellular Radio/Telephone Facility on Town Property and a Tentative Map for a Merger of Town Owned Land. Commissioner Stutz discussed inconsistencies in the figures, statements and the map. The application is asking for a merger of two adjacent parcels; parcel 1 and parcel 2 which she could not find anywhere on the map. Mr. Peterson stated that should be clarified. Parcel 1 showing on the map is representing the merged parcel. Perhaps it should show parcel 1 and parcel 2 being merged and then a different designation for the final merged parcel. This was a confusing piece of property because prior to the freeway going through there were several lots as listed; 41 through 44. Commissioner Stutz discussed the lease agreement with Sun County but she did not know if the Planning Commission ever reviewed it. When she looked at the map and saw an ingress/egress into Sun Cable, the Town gave them permission to pass over the land but did not give them a written ingress/egress. Mr. Peterson discussed reviewing the existing agreement between Sun Cable and the d Town and what was done at the time and the area where Sun Country could access the �✓ area, which is between the Town ring and the fence of the Little League field. He further discussed the easement required at the time of the agreement, however, the easement was a boundary survey. A topographic survey was not required at that time which is a standard requirement for all site developments of the Town which not only shows the property lines but the contours and the existing features as well as what is being proposed. The location of the Sun County structure did not show up until the Town received a survey for this application showing the Sun Country structure right on the lot line. Further discussion included: requiring a map with more information; map showing true north; show a clear picture of the cellular antenna; topo and lot lines shown; merger map detailed to show existing poles; requirement for more health information on this facility; location in relationship to the Town Ring and the Little League field; too much detail showing the section through the PVC conduit trench; possible emission of radiation. It was suggested to continue the application for more detail. Chairman Comiso asked for more than government specs provided by an applicant. Motion by Chairman Comiso to continue this application. Commission Schreiner asked what was actually allowed on this property, what the L covenants were and what the Town is allowed to do with the property. She reviewed V the staff report back to Ann Jamison and she claimed this piece of property was Planning Commission Minutes APPROVED September 8,1993 Page 18 conditioned for open space preserve and private recreational activity only and compared this information with Wes Henderson's letter submitted to the Commission. She would also like to know if the Town or Sun Cable would receive revenue from Bay Area Cellular, if so, how much and what the revenue would be used for. Motion by Chairman Comiso withdrawn Commissioner Stutz requested reviewing the lease agreement with Sun Cable as the area is very unkempt. OPENED PUBLIC HEARING Stuart Bessler, 12777 Canario Way, opposed the application. He objected to the continued commercialization of this piece of land. He sees a sequence of additional applications to extend the use of the antenna and felt the area an eye sore to the residential community. He suggested not clustering everything in one area and had no concern with radiation issues.. He asked that the application be denied. Mike Mangiantini, Bay Area Cellular Telephone Company, discussed the three year project and its history. He felt this site was safe and not a health hazard, however, he realized the Commission would like more assurance and they will assist in providing L. this information. He discussed putting together the lease agreement with the Town as well as a sub -lease with Sun Country; the cable company owns the tower and there is some value in that tower for BACTC. Chairman Comiso commented the maps provided were unclear. The Town did not receive from Sun Country Cable what they expected. This time they will make sure they get what is good and right for the Town. Commissioner Ellinger discussed the previous application presented regarding the Flack residence and comments made at that time regarding assuring this would not radiate microwave energy beyond the leakage spec of microwave ovens, the rationale being that everyone could relate to a microwave oven. He commented on the previous Planning Commission Chairman's reaction to what the antenna structure looks like now. He pulled the original drawings for Sun Country Cable which were quite different. He felt they did need the cellular service, however, the Town would like to know were they are going in the future. CLOSED PUBLIC HEARING Commissioner Stutz asked the staff to correct the figures in the report relating to the size of the parcels. Planning Commission Minutes September 8, 1993 Page 19 APPROVED 4 Additional items to be reviewed: health and safety;legal issues on the property and further use of property; show what beam energy would be and compare it to a microwave oven; emission levels and how cumulative emission would affect people; address issues in Wes Henderson's letter. MOTION SECONDED AND PASSED: Motion by Chairman Comiso, seconded by Commissioner Stutz and passed unanimously to continue this application to an undetermined date for staff and the applicant to answer all issues. 5.8 LANDS OF YANEZ, 26879 Moody Road; A request for a Site Development Permit for a New Residence. Staff had requested this item be continued to allow the applicant to provide additional information for the Town Geologist's review as required in his letter dated 8/27/93. 6. NEW BUSINESS 6.1 Discussion of starting the Planning Commission meetings at an earlier time. The Planning Commission agreed to change the meeting time to 7:00 p.m. 6.2 Discussion of limiting the number of public hearings that can be scheduled for any one meeting. The Commission will leave this to the judgment of staff. Chairman Comiso suggested a memo to Council regarding the five extra Planning Commission meetings scheduled regarding the General Plan and the ten zoning ordinance, site development , and subdivision ordinance amendments which will have to go through public hearing which will all be lengthy meetings. Ms. Niles, when scheduling public hearing items, will take into account length of agenda to make sure all items receive sufficient time to be heard. OLD BUSINESS The scheduling of the Elements were discussed at the work session prior to the Planning Commission meeting. The new schedule is as follows: a. Recreation Element -September 21, 1993 at 5:30 p.m. b. Path and Trail Element -September 21,1993 at 5:30 p.m. C. Circulation Element -September 29, 1993 at 5:30 p.m. d. Land Use Element -September 29, 1993 at 5:30 p.m. e. Conservation Element -October 26, 1993 at 5:30 p.m. f. Noise and Scenic Highways Elements -November 9, 1993 at 5:30 p.m. g. Safety and Seismic Safety Elements -January 18, 1994 at 5:30 p.m. ja, h. Open Space Element -January 26, 1994 at 5:30 p.m • Planning Commission Minutes APPROVED September 8,1993 Page 20 7.6 Report from the Design Guidelines Sub -Committee -continued. Commissioner Schreiner discussed the Design Guidelines Handbook and upcoming meetings. 8. APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES 8.1 Approval of the Minutes of July 28, 1993. MOTION SECONDED AND PASSED: Motion by Commissioner Schreiner, seconded by Commissioner Stutz and passed unanimously with Commissioners Ellinger and Takamoto abstaining, with the following changes: page 3, paragraph one, add "on Ursula Lane." to the last sentence of the motion; requested clarification of the statement made by Ms. Niles on page 14, paragraph three, fourth sentence. The sentence should read, "One of the policies of the Town is to encourage property owners to provide adequate outdoor living area." 9. REPORT FROM THE SITE DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE MEETING E 9.1 LANDS OF COLBY, 26463 Aric Lane; A request for a Site Development bW Permit for a landscape plan. Approved with conditions August 3, 1993. 9.2 LANDS OF HARSLEM & CLASQUIN, 13641 Paseo del Roble; A request for a Site Development Permit for a landscape plan. Approved with conditions August 17, 1993. 9.3 LANDS OF KAO, 13861 Ciceroni Lane; A request for a Site Development Permit for a landscape plan. Approved with conditions August 31, 1993. 9.4 LANDS OF ZATPARVAR, 12813 Clausen Court; A request for a Site Development Permit for a landscape plan. Approved with conditions August 31, 1993. 10. ADIOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned by consensus at 12:10 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Lain Lonberger Planning Secretary