Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout05/11/1994tv Minutes of a Regular Meeting Approved 6/22/94 Town of Los Altos Hills PLANNING COMMISSION Wednesday, May 11, 1994,7:00 P.M. Council Chambers, 26379 Fremont Road cc: Cassettes #f7 -Y4 t4) 1. ROLL CALL AND PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE Planning Commission meeting was called to order at 7:15 p.m. in the Council Chambers at Town Hall. Present: Chairman Comiso, Commissioners Cheng, Ellinger, McMahon, Schreiner, Stutz & Takamoto (left at 10:00 p.m.) Staff: Linda Niles, Planning Director; Jeff Peterson, City Engineer; Lani Lonberger, Planning Secretary `, The Planning Commission and Staff congratulated Commissioner McMahon on her new appointment to the Commission. 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. IZ= 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. None. 4, REPORT FROM THE CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF MAY 4 1994 A public packet is available the Friday prior to the City Council meeting for the Planning Commission representative. Planning Commission Minutes Approved 6/22/94 May 11, 1994 Page 2 4.1 Commissioner Takamoto reported the following items were discussed at the City Council meeting: Lands of Vucinich; Lands of Ben-Artzi; Lands of Becker/Sander pulled from the consent calendar and then approved; requests to rebuild houses demolished in the 1989 earthquake; Lands of Esber approved with a requirement for a native path; and street tree maintenance ordinance. 4.2 Planning Commission Representative May 18th will be Chairman Comiso. Commissioner Ellinger suggested adding to a future agenda the subject of the intent of conditions of approval for adequate mitigation which might need further conditioning for unknown impacts. 5. PT JBLICHEARINGS If you challenge the proposed action(s) in court, you may be limited to raising only those issues you or someone else raised at the public hearing described below, or in written correspondence delivered to the Planning Commission at, or prior to, the public hearing. All applications approved or denied at tonight's Planning Commission meeting are subject to a 10 day waiting period during which any member of the City Council may initiate a Council review, or any member of the public may appeal the Planning Commission decision. 5.1 LANDS OF BILGER (2-94-ZP-SDGD), 25901 Vinedo Lane; A request for a Site Development Permit for a New Residence and Pool.(The applicant requested continuation.) 5.2 LANDS OF GALLIE/MUNYAK (246-93-ZP-SD),12804 Clausen Court; A request for a Site Development Permit and Variance for a New Residence (continued from February 23, 1994). Mr. Peterson introduced this item requesting additional wording "no barrier maybe locked" to be added to condition 19. Commissioner Schreiner discussed the interior noise levels and what method to use for insuring compliance. Staff noted that the measurements would be taken after the house is built to insure compliance. OPENED PUBLIC HEARING Daryl Fazekas, 50 University Avenue, Los Gatos, architect, presented an overhead presentation noting a complete redesign with the help of all the comments from previous meetings. He discussed the constraints of the lot, designing a 11/2 story house, the elevations of the freeway and freeway ramp in relationship to the house elevation and the design of the house with Planning Commission Minutes Approved 6/22/94 May 11, 1994 Page 3 noise consideration. He noted the applicants agreed with the conditions of approval. The Commission discussed the vibration of passing trucks; the oak tree on the left side of the property asking if the applicant could widen the drainage to protect the oak; the pathway easement document; and not grading beyond the 332 foot line. CLOSED PUBLIC HEARING Condition 5 was discussed regarding the large 36 foot oak tree. The oak is in fair to poor condition. It was suggested to remove the last sentence of the condition. MOTION SECONDED AND PASSED: Motion by Commissioner Stutz and seconded by Commissioner Schreiner to approve the Site Development Permit and Variance with amended conditions as follows: 1. Condition 5 -remove the last sentence, "The large 36 foot oak on site is in poor condition and will need an arborist's care to keep it healthy." 2. Add, "There shall be no grading beyond the 322 foot line." 3. Condition 19, add "no barrier may be locked." AYES: Chairman Comiso, Commissioners Cheng, Ellinger, Schreiner, McMahon & Stutz NOES: None ABSENT: Commissioner Takamoto This item will appear on the City Council consent calendar May 18,1994. 5.3 LANDS OF LEBEAU (57-94-ZP-SD),12795 Normandy Lane; A request for a Site Development Permit for a Major Addition and Remodel. Staff noted there was nothing further to add to the staff report. OPENED PUBLIC HEARING Scott Davis, 4856 El Camino Real, Los Altos, representative for the applicant was available for questions. He noted that they agreed with the conditions of approval. CLOSED PUBLIC HEARING ( Planning Commission Minutes Approved 6/22/94 May 11, 1994 Page 4 Discussion ensued regarding condition 12 and the request for pathway in - lieu fees. MOTION SECONDED AND PASSED: Motion by Commissioner Cheng and seconded by Commissioner Ellinger to approve the Site Development Permit as submitted. AYES: Chairman Comiso, Commissioners Cheng, Ellinger, Schreiner, McMahon & Stutz NOES: None ABSENT: Commissioner Takamoto This item will appear on the City Council consent calendar May 18, 1994 5.4 LANDS OF GILMARTIN (54-94-ZP-SD-GD), 25980 Quail Lane: A request for a Site Development Permit for a Major Addition and Remodel. Staff had nothing further to add to the staff report. Commissioner Schreiner discussed underground wiring being conditioned; the property not connected to sewer; the grandfathered area; the existing driveway and parking area being reduced; and putting in grasscrete. It was noted that Quail Lane is a private street. Commissioner Stutz commented that some of the pages of the plan were upside down. In the future staff should not accept plans which are not easy to read. OPENED PUBLIC HEARING Bill Matson, 384 Castro Street, Mountain View, architect, discussed the impervious surface area; the original subdivision; completing the Certificate of Compliance; underground wiring; and their driveway, granting an easement to their neighbor. They have read and agreed with all conditions of approval. MOTION SECONDED AND PASSED: Motion by Commissioner Ellinger and seconded by Commissioner McMahon to approve the Site Development Permit with amended conditions as follows: 1. Add condition 19, "Overhead wires shall be undergrounded to the satisfaction of the City Engineer." 2. Add condition 20, "A Certificate of Compliance shall be required prior to submittal of plans to the building department." AYES: Chairman Comiso, Commissioners Cheng, Ellinger, Schreiner, McMahon & Stutz NOES: None ABSENT: Commissioner Takamoto This item will appear on the City Council consent calendar May 18,1994 5.6 LANDS OF VUCINICH (179 -93 -TM -ND -GD), 13826 Page Mill Road (located on Moon Lane); Negative Declaration and proposed subdivision of a 4.97 acre parcel into 3 lots (Assessors Parcel No. 182-08-021) (continued from March 23, 1994). MOTION PASSED BY CONSENSUS: To move the Lands of Vucinich to the first public hearing item. Planning Commission Minutes Approved 6/22/94 May 11, 1994 Page 5 AYES: Chairman Comiso, Commissioners Cheng, Ellinger, Schreiner, McMahon & Stutz NOES: None ABSENT: Commissioner Takamoto This item will appear on the City Council consent calendar May 18, 1994. 5.5 LANDS OF MOORING (41-94-ZP-SD-GD),13791 La Paloma Road; A request for a Site Development Permit for a New Residence and Pool. Staff had nothing further to add to the staff report. OPENED PUBLIC HEARING Glenn Cahoon, 1585 The Alameda, San Jose, project architect, discussed the project noting they agreed with the conditions of approval. Dave Mooring, 13791 La Paloma, applicant, questioned condition 18. Mr. Peterson commented on the condition to Mr. Mooring's satisfaction. Mr. Peterson noted a correction in wording for clarification in the first sentence of condition 18 which should read, "The applicant shall dedicate a thirty foot 1/2 ( street right-of-way on La Paloma Road." CLOSED PUBLIC HEARING MOTION SECONDED AND PASSED: Motion by Commissioner Ellinger and seconded by Chairman Comiso to approve the Site Development Permit with amended wording to condition 18, first sentence, "The applicant shall dedicate a thirty foot half street right-of-way on La Paloma Road." AYES: Chairman Comiso, Commissioners Cheng, Ellinger, Schreiner, McMahon & Stutz NOES: None ABSENT: Commissioner Takamoto This item will appear on the City Council consent calendar May 18,1994 5.6 LANDS OF VUCINICH (179 -93 -TM -ND -GD), 13826 Page Mill Road (located on Moon Lane); Negative Declaration and proposed subdivision of a 4.97 acre parcel into 3 lots (Assessors Parcel No. 182-08-021) (continued from March 23, 1994). MOTION PASSED BY CONSENSUS: To move the Lands of Vucinich to the first public hearing item. Planning Commission Minutes Approved 6/22/94 May 11, 1994 Page 6 firr Mr. Peterson introduced this item noting that a written summary of the previous night's subcommittee had been placed in the Planning Commission boxes. This was the third meeting of the subcommittee. The memo summarizes the improvements within the basin and a list of provisions that the subcommittee felt should be part of the solution to the drainage problems. Mr. Peterson read through the list of improvements 1 through 7 and the list of provisions 1 through 8. Based on these items, he read the recommended condition of approval from the subcommittee that delineates how the improvements would be paid for. He added the following sentence to the end of this condition: "The improvements shall be constructed or bonded for prior to the recordation of the final map." He noted a letter from Mr. Vucinich was part of the staff report. Chairman Comiso noted that the Planning Commission is only going to take this application from where they entered as a commission. She complimented the staff for all their hard work and Mr. Peterson's efforts with the subcommittee meetings. The Commission discussed the recommendations. Commissioner Ellinger asked, in case of a fund shortage, was there a prioritization of the improvements? Mr. Peterson responded no. By the Town accepting and approving this condition, the Town is placing themselves responsible. A funding fallout might be from residents who decide not to participate. The condition is written in such a way that if everyone backs out of the agreement, it would be left to the Town and the applicant to improve the drainage in the Moon Lane basin. However, there are members of the subcommittee who said that they were willing to commit funds. Commissioner Ellinger further discussed #4 regarding the Town having a major responsibility in the correction of the drainage basin problems, asking if this conclusion was reached on the basis of there being public improvements in that basin such as the roads. Mr. Peterson responded yes. They further discussed #3, and the Town's percentage of responsibility. The rough cost would be $100,000 for the improvements listed in the report. However nothing has been designed so the figure could vary. Mr. Peterson noted that during the course of the discussions, they had again discussed problems, solutions and cost sharing. He agreed with most of the problems listed by the residents (subcommittee). There were various solutions proposed. He guided towards not having total piping all the way to the creek which he felt would cause problems with the creek later on. The comments from the subcommittee were that the Town had a major responsibility regarding cost. He felt this was really a policy issue and it was not his place to commit the Town as far as their financial responsibility. That decision will ultimately be made by the City Council. As far as this condition, the method of payment is primarily �, from the residents of that subcommittee. Planning Commission Minutes Approved 6/22/94 May 11, 1994 Page 7 OPENED PUBLIC HEARING (Tentative Map) Morley Young, 27840 Saddle Court Road, discussed the Town designing the drainage system; solutions proposed were from the Vucinich's engineer; no real research as to the rate of runoff; approval of the subdivision should not be granted within this drainage basin problem; why the Town is so quick to approve the subdivision in light of the drainage concerns; old approval of subdivision; ownership of Moon Lane and who is responsible; fire truck access; aesthetics and philosophy; country atmosphere; widening of Moon Lane; density consideration; and most lots in the area are two acres or more. He noted that in the subcommittee meeting they discussed responsibility, the drainage problem being everyone's problem and no one knew what the total costs would be or how it would be paid for. He also noted that the Town, before approving any other subdivision, should consider the impact of any properties downhill. Many of the decisions will have to be made by the Town. Carol Gottlieb, Co -Chair, Pathway Committee, noted support by the pathway committee of the City Engineer's recommendation for a pathway on the property (#15). L Dru Anderson, 27820 Saddle Court, asked what is the policy for Saddle Mountain subdivision people who have improvements accepted by the Town and now may have to contribute again noting this may be a City Council policy issue. A question was raised regarding requesting an opinion from the City Attorney. It was felt that the legal aspects would be addressed when the City Council addresses the issues. Tim Chown, 13822 Page Mill Road, discussed the major responsibility of the Town should be the number one issue as they approved the Saddle Mountain subdivision and the improvements which he felt was a mistake; the Vucinichs being held hostage by the Town; the recommended condition by the subcommittee not addressing maintenance of the dissipater; and the Town being 100% responsible. Alan Huntzinger, project civil engineer, discussed the problem with last nights subcommittee meeting. He would like to see the drainage problems solved in six months, however he did not see that as a possibility. He would like to see the project move forward. Mr. Vucinich does not have a drainage problem. He felt Vucinich can detain their peak runoff so that there is no increased impact f downstream. They will provide sanitary sewer, fresh water to the area, fire turnaround, their drainage improvements and participate in the ultimate Planning Commission Minutes Approved 6/22/94 May 11, 1994 Page 8 drainage solution. There are only three neighbors who are stating they have a drainage problem (Ewald, Chown, Bavor). He felt they could come up with a solution for their property that would not add to the drainage basin which he felt the City Engineer would approve. They could then approve a subdivision on that basis and further stipulate that at such time that the staff, city attorney and all the property owners involved come into an agreement with their ultimate solution for drainage and financing, they then can determine what Vucinich's fair share would be. The Vucinichs should not have to solve other people's drainage problems. Mr. Huntzinger verbally corrected the position of the energy dissipater on the Anderson land (Plan #4) noting he had looked at some old plans. The dissipater is actually closer to the property line than indicated. In discussing the Tentative Map, he clarified that each lot is over 11/2 acres. He further discussed Plan #5 for detaining water on their own site so they are not running any additional water down on the Bavors. The solution they have before them is the ultimate system of pipelines, inlets and various things all the way down to Matedero Creek. This might be what the final design solution is but as he mentioned, the final design solution might be years in the making. He hopes it isn t. He would rather see someone have it designed by the end of this summer. His solution is drain basins on a temporary basis until such time as the ultimate solution is built. Chairman Comiso noted that they were spending a great deal of time on drainage as there is a real problem. However, the end design would not be coming from the Planning Commission. It will be gone over and over by staff and the applicants. Tonight they will have to decide if it can be mitigated in order to approve the map. Commissioner Schreiner had some concerns regarding the configuration of the lots. She was particularly concerned with lot 3 which is very constrained. She further discussed the Lot Unit Factor. Lot 3 is constrained by several factors; (1) the conservation easements resulting in, at one point, a 191/2% slope to the driveway. The Wilsey and Ham report recommendation was a 15-18% slope on the driveway. She was also concerned with the deed restriction limiting the configuration (#24). She would also like to see lot 3 with more flexibility. She asked Mr. Huntzinger if they had considered giving lots 2 and 3 more breathing room. Mr. Huntzinger responded that his initial concern in siting lot 1 was to follow the existing fence line and the existing landscaping. He believed there was a little excess LUF on lot 1. If it was their desire to make each of the lot unit factors equal, he could re -adjust the lot lines. They had already done this with lots 2 and 3. His initial concept was equal size lots on 2 and 3 with the same number of square feet. The staff suggested it would be better if they took into account the steep roadway embankment on Moon Lane which adds to the overall steepness of the lot and therefore make lot 3larger and get an equal lot unit �w factor on lots 2 and 3. He could redesign the driveway slightly to get it down to Planning Commission Minutes Approved 6/22/94 May 11, 1994 Page 9 v 18% as recommended by Wilsey and Ham. He noted that this was only the first concept and they were not trying to draw a house plan at this point. It was initially drawn at that elevation to permit a septic system below it. When they take the septic system out, then they can bring the house lower on the hill, and move it further toward Page Mill slightly. It will depend on the shape of the actual house. Mr. Huntzinger further discussed the fire truck turn around noting that the fire department has several configurations that are permitted; (1) build a circle like a cul-de-sac, (2) build a square, (3) build a hammer head like a "T", (4) a "Y" configuration which he would propose using. He would like to use the driveway of lots 2 and 3 and Moon Lane and widen out the driveway for the fire trucks. Mr. Huntzinger was asked by Commissioner Ellinger if they were planning a one story house on lot 3. He responded yes perhaps with the living room, kitchen on top of the garage which would improve their view. A discussion regarding the outdoor living area ensued. Mr. Huntzinger noted that the owner of lot 3 would have to be someone who would not want a sport court. He could see it developed nicely in orchards or vineyards. There is room for patios and possibly a pool below the house with the downhill swimming pool wall actually being a retaining wall where the water goes right out to the edge. L Lot 3 is the same slope as Mr. Young's lot. It is only slightly steeper than lot 1 if 4✓ you look at the underlining parts. Chairman Comiso asked if there was adequate outdoor area on lot 3. Mr. Huntzinger felt there was adequate area. CLOSED PUBLIC HEARING Commissioner Ellinger felt there was a fundamental conclusion of the Negative Declaration in that there was nothing that could not be mitigated. Mr. Vucinich cannot mitigate all the drainage problems alone nor should he. However, if nothing is done regarding drainage, the problem will continue as any development will contribute to the problem. There are some issues that he would call clear and recurring hazards of flooding of Moon Lane which cause restriction of travel for safety vehicles and an inconvenience for the residents. There are some solutions that are being proposed but they are limited to the Vucinich property. There was a recommendation regarding a maintenance provision for the improvements which includes repair of the energy dissipater on the Anderson property. He further discussed the outdoor living area, the conservation easement (good place for an orchard or vineyard) and the possibility of dividing the subdivision into two lots which would be less constrained. Commissioner Takamoto agreed with Commissioner Ellinger in that this was the time to handle the drainage problem before anything else is started. He was Planning Commission Minutes Approved 6/22/94 May 11, 1994 Page 10 concerned with the lots, not so much with the size, but the design of the homes on those lots. If this project is approved, he will be looking at the design of the houses on those lots and the positioning as he felt this was important. Commissioner Schreiner was concerned with the lot configuration. Perhaps a two lot subdivision would be better. She further discussed the City Council discussion regarding quasi subdivisions as a problem. She felt strongly that the status of Moon Lane needed to be clarified in order for the Vucinich's to dedicate a 30 foot road right-of-way. Commissioner Ellinger noted that he had met some residents who actually knew Mr. Moon. Chairman Comiso viewed the drainage in three parts: an upper drainage problem; a Vucinich problem; and a lower drainage problem. She further discussed the Town dissipater; the Town's responsibility to maintain the dissipater; the Vucinich property not being the cause of all the drainage problems; and the lower neighbors who are experiencing the drainage problems. She did not know who Moon Lane belongs to however it is a private road and treated for over 40 years as a private road. She understands the residents like the rural feeling and do not want to deed the road to the Town. The residents are responsible for the upkeep of the road, making the improvements. The Planning Commission cannot condition properties not before them. Part of the problem is that the Town has not kept up with the dissipater. The Vucinich's are receiving drainage from the Handley's property. This problem is adding to the drainage downstream. The Planning Commission can recommend that all of the drainage problems be mitigated but how do they enforce it. The Planning Commission can recommend to the City Council that they take care of what is the Town's responsibility; the dissipater and the drainage from above. A drainage district might be able to be formed, however she did not know how the Town could ever enforce it. This would have to be done by the neighbors. The Planning Commission can condition the Vucinich's piece of property so they do not add any more than their fair share to the drainage. She further discussed disking adding to drainage problems. Commissioner Stutz felt if the Town had taken care of their water, Moon Lane would be fairly dry. The Bavors, Handleys and Chowns were all approved secondary units without extra drainage conditions. She did not want to condition Mr. Vucinich any more than the Bavors, Handleys or Chowns. She did not feel fixing Moon Lane was a Town problem. It is a private road. If they are going to condition residents to do something about drainage, they should also condition the Town to take care of the water coming off of Saddle Mountain. She had no problem with the lot unit factors as proposed and felt the application had met all of the conditions for subdividing. taw Planning Commission Minutes Approved 6/22/94 May 11, 1994 Page 11 Commissioner Ellinger recommended forwarding the recommendation to the City Council. The drainage in this basin can be reviewed as an urgency matter as they have findings documented over a historical time that there is a clear and recurring hazard here caused by an inadequate drainage situation. He felt this could be addressed with a variety of improvements, some of which could involve the Town. Further, add to the findings that they have not only specific proposals that have been submitted by residents and experts but there is a sense of cooperation and constructive approach to solving the problem which is not likely to occur again soon. Both that attitude and the clear and recurring hazard compel an urgent action to address the drainage concerns and to arrive at a proposed solution for implementation. This would be his first proposal. Staff was not sure of the time frame in which this item would appear on the City Council agenda. The reason Commissioner Ellinger suggested taking this application in two parts was that he wanted to first, take some action that was firmly known, documented and committed to an action. He would recommend that the second part, the tentative map, be continued until part 1 is addressed. He cannot support a subdivision at this point until he receives some resolution on what action will be taken regarding drainage. Commissioner Schreiner did not want to leave the applicant hanging again. She hoped they had made enough recommendations on the tentative map so the Vucinich engineer, Mr. Huntzinger, could return with more definite ideas regarding their concerns. She further discussed the conditions of approval, in particular #24. She would like to have a little more flexibility in the tentative map. Chairman Comiso commented that deed restrictions as conditioned really do work. Mr. Peterson asked for clarification and direction regarding Commissioner Ellinger's recommendation. Commissioner Ellinger would like to see, after Council action, a list of improvements to be completed, a schedule or an order in which the improvements would be completed, roughly the cost, how much (percentage) the Town will be paying and know how you are going to collect the money that the residents claim they are willing to pay on a prorated basis. Chairman Comiso felt this was not a possible request for the City Council meeting next Wednesday. Further discussion ensued regarding the Town dissipater, the request to send the drainage concerns to the City Council, and action necessary to mitigate the hazardous drainage situation. Ms. Niles commented that the request can be put on the City Council agenda for the next meeting describing the Planning Commission's concerns. The City Council can then set their time for analyzing the situation. Together with the City Attorney the City Council will be better able to understand how to address the drainage concerns and under what public hearing forum. As far as the tentative map and negative declaration is concerned, these are separate items from the Moon Lane drainage basin. The Commission needs to, as much as possible, go through the conditions of the project for the design as proposed or Planning Commission Minutes Approved 6/22/94 May 11, 1994 ` Page 12 for a possible re -design they might feel necessary if the recommended conditions do not provide a lot design they feel is appropriate. At that point they need to be requesting some re -design. If the conditions do not address the issue of constrained lots then they need to request a re -design. She further discussed the slope density formula, steep lots versus flat lots, and the Town policy to approve projects that will accommodate reasonable development within the Town standards for whatever are the constraints of the property. The Commission is still working on what they feel is an appropriate design for the subdivision of the Vucinich site. It appears this may need another continuance. However, if they do continue the tentative map, the Planning Commission needs to enumerate all the concerns for the applicant and their engineer. Mr. Peterson suggested sending the issue of drainage separately from the approval process of the tentative map. Commissioner Schreiner's concerns were: (1) the drainage basin; (2)the steepness of the driveways; (3) the configuration of the driveways to lots 2 and 3; (4) the actual configuration of the lots, especially lot 3 and its placement because of its constraints due to the conservation easement; and (5) the status of Moon Lane and how they will be able to require a dedication. Concerning the status of Moon Lane, it has been noted that Moon Lane is a separate parcel on the assessors roles; no one knows who is paying the taxes; and Mr. Moon is still [ alive. Commissioner Stutz did not feel they had to address (1) as it is left to the �►" satisfaction of the City Engineer. Commissioner Stutz did not have a problem with the lots as designed. She did feel, as suggested by Mr. Huntzinger, the driveway slope could be reduced on lot 3. Commissioner Ellinger and Schreiner would like to see the driveways combined to reduce the steepness which may require an adjustment of the proposed lot line that divides the two lots. Commissioner Schreiner would also like the Commission to consider conditioning lot 3 to be below a certain contour line because of the view (of windows) from Saddle Mountain. Chairman Comiso noted that this is already conditioned to be a step on contour house so they should not have the same height and mass problem that you would with a single level or a two level house. Mr. Peterson suggested that the Commission describe to staff generally what they are interested in seeing and the staff can work with the applicant on some scenarios. He noted that there are different provisions in the code that the staff will have to work with to provide the best solution. Commissioner Stutz felt they should not look at drain fields at all and condition the property to be on sewer. Mr. Peterson noted that in talking with the design engineer, his understanding was that on the title report it shows that there is an utilities easement on Moon Lane already. There may be a need for cutting across a corner of the Ewald's property. Mr. Ewald noted there was not a problem with granting an easement for the sewer line. Commissioner Ellinger going back to the height and the location of the specific building as proposed by Commissioner Schreiner, �W noted that Saddle Mountain is more than 100 feet above this project. He does not Planning Commission Minutes Approved 6/22/94 May 11, 1994 ( Page 13 want to add a condition regarding lot 3 being at a certain contour line. He felt the staffs recommended condition was adequate. Further discussion ensued regarding the design of the driveway suggesting a condition so staff can review the plan and approve it for the driveway change to reduce the slope. Commissioner Ellinger agreed with the provision requesting that if they cannot reduce the driveway steepness down to an acceptable level without moving the lot line as drawn, it would be returned to the Planning Commission. Commissioner Schreiner further discussed several lots on Saddle Mountain that were specifically conditioned to be at a certain contour level so you could see over them or at least not see into their windows. She noted this condition was something they have done quite often in Town which leads to a rolling contour feeling. Her concern was with lot 3. Commissioner Ellinger agreed to a condition stating the height on these properties of any construction cannot exceed a building that would prevent anyone from Saddle Mountain looking straight across and being obstructed by these projects. He really felt the condition was not needed. Further discussion ensued. After discussion, Commissioner Schreiner noted that the issue of height and a contour level could be addressed at the Site Development Permit stage when a house design comes in. The Commission discussed the proposed conditions of approval including the condition proposed by the subcommittee adding "and maintained" to the second sentence after the word "repair". The added condition 19 under "Improvements" which was discussed at the March 23rd meeting (The applicant shall widen Moon Lane up to four feet in width on the north side of the street adjacent to the subdivision to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. It shall be required by the applicant and demonstrated by the applicant's geotechnical engineer that the widening will occur on stable soil. The applicant shall also crack -seal the pavement and fix any potholes on Moon Lane adjacent to the subdivision) was discussed by the City Engineer. Further discussion ensued regarding condition 6. Mr. Peterson noted the applicant could dedicate the 10 foot strip adjacent to the 20 foot half street width that is on their property. They can also dedicate any rights that they have to the section that is in front of their property. If they have limited rights, they have dedicated those rights. This is something that can be worked out in the legal documents. At a minimum, they can dedicate the 10 feet. They cannot grant or dedicate an easement that has been dedicated to them. Commissioner Ellinger questioned the discussion regarding three driveways sharing a common exit from Moon Lane. He asked if they needed a special 4 condition that permits staff to accept this request. Mr. Peterson commented that Planning Commission Minutes Approved 6/22/94 May 11, 1994 Page 14 if it turned out that the best solution involved a combination of three driveways which was not a street, they could recommend a variance of that particular ordinance because of the configuration of the land. This would be opposed to sending off a separate street in that direction which he felt would have an impact on the property. If the Planning Commission felt this was appropriate, they could recommend this to the City Council. Commissioner Stutz had a problem with condition 15 requiring a Type IIB pathway constructed on the north side of Moon Lane along the subdivision frontage as she felt it would not be maintained or be usable. The Commission asked for the opinion of Carol Gottlieb, pathway committee co-chair. Mrs. Gottlieb noted this was designed by the City Engineer. This was another case where they have an opportunity to put in a IIB path that will be used and maintained. MOTION SECONDED AND FAILED: Motion by Commissioner Stutz and seconded by Chairman Comiso to remove the requirement for a Type IIB path way to be constructed as conditioned in #15. AYES: Chairman Comiso, Commissioners Cheng & Stutz NOES: Commissioners Ellinger, Schreiner, McMahon ABSENT: Commissioner Takamoto Commissioner Stutz discussed condition 24. She did not like to see the "25% average slope" as lot 2 only has a 22% slope. She recommended changing the wording to "lot 2 at 22% and lot 3 at 270/6." Discussion ensued regarding the subcommittee condition as written and how to divide cost responsibility (i.e. percentage of MDA, linear frontage). MOTION SECONDED, AMENDED AND PASSED: Motion by Commissioner Ellinger, seconded by Commissioner Stutz and amended to approve the recommended subdivision as proposed and amended including the condition proposed by the subcommittee amended as follows: 1. The applicant shall construct drainage improvements within the subdivision boundary to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. The Town shall repair and maintain the storm drainage dissipater on the Anderson property and shall construct a grass -lined earthen swale with erosion protection through the Chown property. The applicant shall participate in the construction of drainage improvements downstream of the subdivision to Matadero Creek with prorated financial participation of the residents within the Moon Lane drainage basin, including the Town. Proration means a figure based on percentage contribution calculated on Planning Commission Minutes Approved 6/22/94 May 11, 1994 Page 15 Maximum Development Area for existing properties with participation implied to be up to.or equal to that amount as required. The storm drainage improvements outside of the subdivision shall be designed by the Town. The improvements shall be constructed or bonded for prior to recordation of the final map. 2. Adding condition 19 under "Improvements" as follows: The applicant shall widen Moon Lane up to four feet in width on the north side of the street adjacent to the subdivision to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. It shall be required by the applicant and demonstrated by the applicant's geotechnical engineer that the widening will occur on stable soil. The applicant shall also crack -seal the pavement and fix any potholes on Moon Lane adjacent to the subdivision. 3. Wording to the effect that staff can look at the plan for combining the three driveways to access Moon Lane to the satisfaction of the City Engineer to reduce the steepness. If the driveway steepness cannot be reduced down to an acceptable level without moving the lot line as drawn, it shall be returned to the Planning Commission. AYES: Chairman Comiso, Commissioners Stutz, Cheng & Ellinger NOES: Commissioner Schreiner ABSTAIN: Commissioner McMahon ABSENT: Commissioner Takamoto This item will be noticed for the City Council public hearing meeting. 6. NEW BUSINESS None. 7. OLD BUSINESS 7.1 General Plan Elements -Update schedule for work sessions. a. Land Use Element -Continued. b. Circulation Element -Continued. C. Conservation Element -Continued. d. Scenic Highways Elements -Continued. e. Noise Element -Continued. f. Seismic Safety/Safety Elements -Continued. g. Open Space Element -Continued. The Planning Commission scheduled June 6th for their next special meeting. 4W Planning Commission Minutes Approved 6/22/94 May 11, 1994 Page 16 •• 1 ►C 8.1 Approval of the April 27, 1994 Minutes (minutes will be available at the May 25,1994 meeting). C. • C C • �� M:.. MY � /_ • u ►M • u1u Y�Y. ul MI► • u. 9.1 LANDS OF TURNER, 26342 Ginny Lane; A request for a Site Development Permit for a Sport Court and Landscape Plan. Approved with Conditions. 9.2 LANDS OF BALL, 24183 Hillview Road; A request for a Site Development Permit for a Pool and Decking. Approved with conditions. 9.3 LANDS OF ADDISON,13470 Carillo Lane; A request for a Site Development Permit for a Landscape Plan and Related Improvements. Approved with conditions. The meeting was adjourned by consensus at 12:20 a.m. Respectfully submitted, - " LaniLonberger Planning Secretary