Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout07/12/2000Minutes of a Regular Meeting Approved 7/26/00 Town of Los Altos Hills PLANNING COMMISSION July 12, 2000, 7:00 p.m. tubers, 26379 Fremont Road cc: �asseues hl ffr�-uv 1. ROLL CALL AND PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE The Planning Commission meeting was called to order at 7:02 p.m. in the Council Chambers at Town Hall. Present: Chairman Gottlieb, Commissioners Cottrell, Vitu, Clow & Wong Staff: Carl Cahill, Acting Planning Director; Shaunn O'Connor, Assistant Planner; Lam Smith, Planning Secretary City Engineer: Jeff Peterson 2. PRESENTATIONS FROM THE FLOOR -none 3. PUBLIC HEARINGS 3.1 LANDS OF NAIR, 24680 Prospect Avenue (330-99-ZP-SD-GD); A request for a Site Development Permit for a new residence (continued from June 28, 2000). Staff had nothing further to add to the report. Commissioner Vito stepped down from the hearing due to not being present at the previous meeting. OPENED PUBLIC HEARING Jeanine Unterleitner, Mountain View, project designer, discussed the requested changes made to the plans which included changing the two flat roofs at either end of the rear of the house to a domed roof (lowered three feet) and removing the railing at the upper level. She also provided a color rendering of the project indicating the changes. There were previous concerns regarding a three story facade which has been removed. CLOSED PUBLIC HEARING Planning Commission Minutes Approved 7/26/00 July 12, 2000 Page 2 Commissioner Wong felt, based on the previous comments, the applicants have addressed concems regarding bulk and mass. Commissioner Clow agreed and recommend approval. Commissioner Cottrell felt with the large setbacks to mitigate the bulk and the changes made as requested, he could support this project. MOTION SECONDED AND PASSED: Motion by Commissioner Cottrell and seconded by Commissioner Clow to approve the Site Development Permit for a new residence, Lands of Nair, 24680 Prospect Avenue, with the following additions/changes to the conditions of approval: correcting street name in condition #7;, add "sanitary sewer" to condition #22; and the findings for condition #2 due to location on a knoll and a highly visible lot. AYES: Chairman Gottlieb, Commissioners Wong, Clow & Cottrell NOES: None ABSTAIN: Commissioner Vitu This approval is subject to a 22 day appeal period. 3.2 LANDS OF KERNS, 11890 Francemont Court (106-00-ZP-SD-GD); A request for a Site Development Permit for a new residence, and an exception to an existing conservation easement to allow part of the driveway to encroach into the easement. 4 Staff had nothing further to add to the report. Jeff Peterson, City Engineer, discussed the driveway design which is essentially the same as presented a year ago. OPENED PUBLIC HEARING Bill Maston, 384 Castro Street, Mountain View, project architect, suggested focusing on specific questions after Susan Roberts, project engineer, addresses the driveway design. Susan Roberts, Giuliani & Kull, project engineer, noted that the driveway alignment is basically the same as presented a year ago. They have looked at many alternatives to meet Town code, fire department requirements, and the Town grading policy. The criteria given by the former Planning Director and Jeff Peterson was that the maximum slope would be 15% but a slope up to 18 'h% would be acceptable. They are presenting a driveway which varies in slope between 16.7% to 18'h % for small portions. The proposal is for slopes that meet the criteria with some retaining walls that, in most areas, are within the five foot maximum height range with the exception of the area down at the bottom by first tum. The reason being, given the fire department minimum turning radii, they had to cut into the hillside in that location with retaining walls that vary up to nine feet in height but the nine feet is for a very limited section. Chairman Gottlieb asked if it would help with the slope of the driveway in the nine foot area to have brought the driveway through the lower parcel and up? Ms. Roberts responded no due to a grade that would inhibit access of that slope. Chairman Gottlieb asked if there was any geotechnical ( work done on the proposed steep driveway? Ms. Roberts responded yes. Their geotechnical Planning Commission Minutes Approved 7/26/00 July 12, 2000 ( Page 3 engineer has reviewed the plans. They will use peers under the retaining walls particularly in areas of oak trees. Mr. Masten continued by discussing the upper and lower retaining walls and where the old road is located which will be re -vegetated providing more screening than currently exists. He further discussed the re -vegetation as shown on the model. As a condition of approval they will eventually return with a complete re -vegetation plan for approval. The goal is to mitigate and hide the retaining walls. Currently you can not see the road. The area of 18% slope was discussed (first and second turnout). They have a 14 foot road section which is quite wide though it is required and with the turnouts, sections 20 feet wide. They are very comfortable with safety margins for pedestrians, etc. Commissioner Clow was concerned with one 16" oak tree. It appears that what would need to be done is removing the trunk when it arches back over because it would probably get in the way of a fire truck. He felt the main trunk was savable and it would be feasible to have more screening from down below by having the oak tree remain. Ms. Roberts noted that it was their goal to save as many oak trees as possible. This tree in particular is at the limits of the work they will be doing. If, during construction, they can move things a little bit away from the tree, they will. Mr. Masten provided supplemental information in the way of a handout regarding trees as they relate to the driveway. He felt between making moderate adjustments in the field and working with the fire department they will be doing everything they can to save the trees. He further discussed off-site views of the road and screening by planting on both sides of the "S" curve which allows them to block the views of the road due to the serpentine layout which will eventually help them with a landscape plan. They feel comfortable that the future approval process will create mitigation landscape screening. He further addressed a previous concern regarding the possibility of reducing the square footage of the upper site house to reduce its impact. As a result they have provided an alternate plan which would eliminate 387 square feet from the house as summarized on A-4. He reminded the Commission that there was a petition of 180 supporters previously and an additional 10 letters of endorsement received. They have gone through an exhausted effort to gain the support of neighbors. He further discussed the pathway at the top of the hill. He referred to the plans showing the pathway which would follow the road alignment until it reached the upper portion than drifting out as it has no place to go at the moment and there is a concern by neighbors and the Open Space District the appropriateness of this trail and where it will go. The original intention was for it to go to the Open Space District. Yet no one wants it to as then it becomes an uncontrolled access (and unsupervised) to the open space. They are proposing eliminating the pathway on the upper site, to limit the pathway to where it is currently shown on the previous approval at the bottom of the lower site at Francemont Court. He referred to the letter from the Open Space District, in particular, the inappropriateness of having this house on top of the hill. Eighteen acres of open space have been dedicated and the General Plan approved the upper site as a buildable site with an exception to the conservation easement to allow this to happen. Regarding the conservation easement, they are not proposing to encroach into the conservation easement but to realign it so that there is no net gain. Should they take the approach that this is not a feasible option he can work with Mr. Cahill on language identifying a general location of the pathway by centerline on the map. In Planning Commission Minutes Approved 7/26/00 July 12, 2000 Page 4 this way the centerline of the pathway is established first and the final document for the easement description is filed after the trail is actually built. This allows the surveyors to use the trail for the final layout of the map. This has worked well in Portola Valley and he felt it would work well here. Options are eliminating the pathway or if required, the simplistic way of laying out the pathway in the field. He continued by discussing condition #1. He suggested modifying it to work with staff and the Town Engineer to further investigate alternative ways to address the drainage without taking all the water down to the creek. It is obvious that it has never gone there before and the road alignment has been in place for 40 years. There is a minor concern from their arborist that if they take too much water away from the hillside it could effect the existing native vegetation. Their concern is how they can come up with a drainage plan that evenly disperses the water on the hillside without creating erosion. They would like the opportunity to work with staff if this is a possibility and if not will accept the condition as originally proposed. Regarding condition #3, regarding the grading moratorium, the contractor felt the grading was a 6 to 8 week job. If they can start by September 1" and be completed by November I", than this is not an issue. They have a Site Development permit for the lower site and they would like to attach the grading of the upper site with the site permit for the lower site. This would include the retaining walls, the road and erosion control in place; not the final concrete apron because they would want to keep that in gravel through the winter otherwise they would sustain too much damage to the concrete from construction crews. They estimate 8 to 9 weeks for completed roads, retaining walls and building pad. As a part of the conditions, they would be happy to plant the major trees now with the smaller landscaping postponed to a later date. He further discussed the Santa Barbara style of architecture, the use of earthtone colors and roof to blend �I with the hill. Tom Fisher, Mid Peninsula Open Space District, reviewed and summarized the District Manager's letter noting the following concerns: project remains largely unchanged from previous submittal; project being inconsistent with the General Plan; the significant adverse impact on the resource values in the surrounding community; aggressive from an engineering standpoint; visibility of the retaining walls; and conditions 7 & 8 not sufficient to mitigate the visual impact of the project on District's land. They would like the opportunity to meet with Town staff and the applicant to discuss other appropriate locations for a trail. He concluded by requesting the Commission deny this project application. Liz Dana, 25700 Bassett Lane, noted that the project has been turned down three times by the Commission and Council asking what was so different with this submittal. She was concerned with building on ridges. She provided a 1989 San Jose Mercury News editorial regarding Measure B which would keep the ridges clear. She opposed any building on a ridge. David Nieh, 18269 McCoy Avenue, Saratoga, a registered architect and a certified planner, noted that Los Altos Hills has made an effort to maintain the rural atmosphere. He provided a graph of the ridge discussing the upper site at approximately the 800 foot elevation exceeds the development line. He asked that the Commission consider the image of Los Altos Hills. The approval will set a precedence, requesting denial of the project. Planning Commission Minutes Approved 7/26/00 July 12, 2000 Page 5 4 Peter Nieh, 25765 Bassett Road, felt the property violates the General Plan. There was a petition collected today with 100% of the people not in favor of the project. He asked that the Commission uphold what was intended for the area and deny the request. Michael Marshall, Los Altos, quoted a letter from the applicants which appeared in the local paper in November, 1998, stating facts regarding their on-going project. He noted two points: the purchase of the property was a gamble by the applicants; and do not be pressured to accept this application. He further discussed the geographical special nature of the woodland ridgeline, surrounded by forested and chaparral lands, house would be widely visible from many places, the massive driveway and retaining walls, wildlife habitat, distinctive fingerprint ridge. He further quoted from the General Plan (land use and circulation). He requested denial of the application, leaving the land as beautiful as it is. Louise Goodman, 11989 Rhus Ridge Road, from her home, she cannot see any homes. She felt a house of this size in this location would effect the value of her property. Dot Schreiner, 14301 Saddle Mountain Drive, was happy that the previous speakers made a point that an approval of the project would set a precedent for the Town. The key issues are still the same. The project has been reviewed for two to three years with a thorough analysis by the Planning Commission and the engineering consultant. The feasibility of the driveway is still a main issue (visibility, grading, retaining walls, scaring the area). The house is 32 feet high from ( highest to lowest which is not a one story on a ridgeline. The same problems still exist which fit'' were denied previously. Jeff Peterson, City Engineer, discussed the driveway design noting it has been a long process. The issues have come down to the turning radii and impact on trees and grades versus retaining walls. The project has met engineering requirements but not planning issues. Engineering and planning had both listed their limits. The applicant first tried to meet both requirements with difficulty. So they tried to meet engineering requirements however, the retaining wall heights in some areas were beyond what the planning department would support. Town staff cannot come before the Council in a fractured manner so the previous staff report recommended denial. Now you have a different staff and a different perspective. Looking at the project, the current planning department felt the project, in general, was supportable and could be mitigated by vegetation and landscaping. From an engineering standpoint, the project is approvable. Sandy Humphries, Environmental Design Committee, indicated that the Committee has opposed the project from the beginning. She discussed the rare plant life which has not been seen before. The issue is not about the applicants but about the Town's children and the future of the Town. This area is a jewel. Scott Vanderlip, Pathways Committee, would like to keep the proposed pathway, working with the Open Space District, for the realignment. Because they had the support from the applicants previously, he was not aware until he read the July 5th letter that they were requesting the (: deletion of the pathway request. The Pathway Committee has not had an opportunity to discuss 4/ any alternatives to the recommendations. They would be willing to work with the applicants. Planning Commission Minutes Approved 7/26/00 July 12, 2000 Page 6 Sharon Shumate, 25765 Bassett Lane, asked for clarification regarding the pathway location. Bill Maston described the pathway proposal using the model of the site. The original easement was a straight line. The issue was if this was the right alignment. The pathway was always shown sharing the road alignment up the hill. Nancy Ewald, Pathways Committee, supports the pathway going through the property connecting to the open space. The committee would be happy to work with the applicants regarding placement. As a resident, she would have never seen this property. She was surprised it was a two story on a ridge. She felt the noticing process should be expanded for a project such as this. Bill Maston concluded by stating "let's uphold what was intended." He provided the original Tentative Map which was approved in 1988 and was found to be consistent with the General Plan. It created a exception to a conservation easement to allow building on the top site and limited to a one story structure. If it were not following the General Plan, how was it approved in 1988. This is a unique site, over 22 acres with most of it considered in a conservation easement. By definition, this is a one story house stepping down the hill to conform with the slope. There are other houses in the area higher than this project. Sharon Shumate, 25765 Bassett Lane, noted that she and Peter Nieh took time today to talk to people in the area and put together a letter which will be faxed to the members. They are opposed to the development, quoting Section 10.2-201. She is working on a further petition which will be submitted at a later date. CLOSED PUBLIC DARING Commissioner Vitu appreciated the concerns expressed but they need to look at the original subdivision and the approved building site and the fact that 18 acres are in a conservation easement. The applicants have done a good job trying to minimize the impact on the site. She felt the house was low profile and they have certainly been through much effort trying to have the driveway meet the engineering criteda and the retaining walls meet the planning department criteria. Regarding the reduction in square footage, her understanding was that the increase was to include the water tank which is considered desirable. Regarding the pathway, she was concerned that there was uncontrolled public access very close to their home and would be sympathetic for a relocation. Regarding grading moratorium and storm drain, she felt the applicants could work with staff. She was not sure about the grading needing to be completed by July 1" but if staff was convinced that it could be accomplished in time, it would be agreeable. Commissioner Cottrell stated that this is an approved lot with two building sites. He believes in preserving ridgelines but landscaping will mitigate the house and driveway. He knows the road is a challenge but they have the fire department's okay. They have heard that the engineering can be solved but with high retaining walls. He could support the project. 4 Planning Commission Minutes Approved 7/26/00 July 12, 2000 Page 7 Commissioner Wong also moved to the town for the rustic atmosphere. Looking at the house, the issue is consistent with the General Plan and objective by treating everyone fairly. When building, you are going to see neighbors. The Town approved this as a building site. He felt this was consistent with the General Plan and meets codes. There is no reason to deny the project. The landscape plan will mitigate the site. He also agreed to realign the pathway. Commissioner Clow agreed with the previous comments. The original approval indicates there was a building site on the upper site. The applicants have done everything they can do to make the project as compatible with the area and surrounding neighbors as possible. The argument regarding grading earlier to get the mitigating vegetation in place during the winter is a good one. He is not in favor of the off road pathway but if they have a pathway he would hope it would be realigned. Chairman Gottlieb noted that they do not allow nine foot retaining walls. Staff mentioned in previous reports that it was the total earth that will be moved and all the retaining walls which were the problem. Also, on a ridgeline, there should be a single story house. This will be extremely visible to surrounding areas. Originally they were to have a house on either the top or lower site. The approved lower site house is not compatible with the upper site (defacto subdivision). The secondary dwelling should be subordinate and compatible with the main residence. The applicants had a choice of either building at the top of the hill or the bottom but not on both. She did not feel this was in keeping with the General Plan or ordinances. If approved she asked that the landscape plan return to the Planning Commission for review and approval. She was in favor of the staff recommendation for grading no later than July 1" and asked staff for an explanation of the request which was answered by Jeff Peterson. He indicated that the recommendation was a practical issue. He reviewed the cut and fill, the retaining walls, and the width of the road indicating it was very optimistic to think they could complete the grading in two months. The basis for the condition was due to the big job and it would be better to have a good long construction season rather than starting at the end of a construction season. Regarding condition #1 (drainage), he has no problem working with the applicants to see if there are other options. The paved area on the site will create essentially 100% runoff. As mentioned earlier, there is a fair amount of loose soil on top of the surface that erodes very easily. The entire reason for the recommendation and condition to pipe to the bottom is that it would be extremely difficult to show that the storm drainage could be handled without creating erosion problems. He also referred to the old large landslide on the Adobe Creek subdivision. Again, he would be happy to work with the applicants. Further discussion ensued regarding the location of the conservation easement explained by Susan Roberts. Staff noted that no action regarding the exception to the conservation easement would be taken, only a recommendation to the City Council. MOTION SECONDED AND PASSED: Motion by Commissioner Clow and seconded by Commissioner Wong to delete condition #3 wording regarding the July Is` grading date. AYES: Commissioners Vitu, Wong & Clow NOES: Chairman Gottlieb & Commissioner Cottrell Planning Commission Minutes Approved 7/26/00 July 12, 2000 Page 8 MOTION SECONDED AND PASSED: Motion by Commissioner Cottrell and seconded by Commissioner Clow to approve the Site Development Permit for a new residence, and recommend approval to the City Council for an exception to an existing conservation easement to allow part of the driveway to encroach into the easement, Lands of Kerns, 11890 Francemont Court, with the following additions/changes to the conditions of approval: condition #1, add that other storm drain systems may be proposed by the applicant subject to review and approval by the City Engineer; delete conditions #3 and addition the standard condition regarding grading and drainage and the grading moratorium (November 1 to April 1); condition #4, change to state that the applicant shall work with the Pathway Committee and Mid Peninsula Open Space District to locate an appropriate pathway that routes to the Duvenick Open Space Preserve. Appropriate easement grant documents and exhibits shall be signed and notarized by the property owner and the pathway shall be constructed prior to final inspection.; condition #7, change "Site Development' hearing to "Planning Commission" hearing; condition #8, add that the amount shall be determined by the Planning Commission and may exceed $5,000; and condition #18, adding that the applicant shall take all measures as determined necessary by the City Engineer to mitigate traffic impacts on neighbors. AYES: Commissioners Vitu, Cottrell, Wong & Clow NOES: Chairman Gottlieb This approval will be subject to a 22 day appeal period. The exception to the conservation easement will be scheduled for a City Council agenda. Brief break at 10:00 p.m. 3.3 LANDS OF COTTRELL, 13480 North Fork Lane (325 -99 -TM- GD -ND); A request for approval of a two lot subdivision of 7.75 acres, and proposed Mitigated Negative Declaration. Staff had nothing further to add. Commissioner Cottrell stepped down from the hearing. Chairman Gottlieb questioned condition #15. Mr. Peterson responded that it puts the widening of the road when the development of Parcel 1 occurs. Commissioner Vitu questioned condition #14. Mr. Peterson discussed the condition noting the challenge of using a lift station and the substantial costs associated with it above and beyond the normal extension to the sewer main. Based on the information regarding subdivisions and extending sewer through the Town, sewering properties if within so many feet of a public main but also in light of the fact that this would require a lift station for a two lot subdivision, asking what the Commission felt was appropriate (added investment). There may be a potential to connect to the existing private lift station however those people are not obligated to allow anyone else to connect to it and/or changes would need to be made to the lift station to accommodate another connection. There is a significant cost issue as well as continued maintenance. He provided background of the City Council discussion regarding lift stations. Condition #15 is if the Commission desires this subdivision to have a lift station or approach the neighbor on Middle Fork to see if they could Planning Commission Minutes Approved 7/26/00 July 12, 2000 Page 9 4W connect. A separate sanitary sewer easement would not be needed. Chairman Gottlieb questioned condition #5 which was discussed by Mr. Peterson. Rejecting it now would allow them to accept it any time in the future by passing a resolution. Commissioner Wong asked if the surrounding homes are on septic or sewer. The applicant responded that seven or eight homes on Via Feliz are on septic and on Middle Fork there are five to six homes on the private sewer. Everything else on South Fork is septic. OPENED PUBLIC HEARING Carl Cottrell, 13480 North Fork Lane, applicant, his object is to simply subdivide the property into two lots. He has a buyer for parcel 1 who does not want to build on the lot for at least five years or never. This is a neighbor who is quite concerned with preservation in the neighborhood and does not want to see houses built on this parcel. He further discussed the conditions of approval regarding improvements (fire hydrant, public water system, public utilities, public sanitary sewer system, etc.) when there is no house. His engineer, Susan Roberts, has spoken to the land owner who manages the private sewer who assures them that it is at capacity. As an alternative, they have run a perk test on parcel 1 to show a septic system would work well. He asked that the sewer issue be treated as an option, not a requirement. He understands that services need to be provided but when and how. He would like some relief so the future owner would be responsible if he ever develops the property. Regarding the pathway, the pathway map clearly shows no pathway on his property. There is a pathway on Via Feliz and Middle Fork and Three Forks with a connector down Page Mill Road. Page Mill Road is approximately 100 yards from his property boundary on one side and 125 yards on the other. It is proposed to put a pathway along the creek on the western side of the property which would parallel the one on Page Mill Road. His neighbor, Mr. Raffin, has written his objections. There is also a note from Mr. and Mrs. Quattrone objecting to the pathway and he objects to the request when there is an alternative not far away. The path along the creek is already an animal pathway and he sees no reason to disturb them. An alternative proposal was made but does not make any sense (diagonally across the property) which would across the flattest and most expensive part of the property. He asked for the deletion of the pathway requirement for the reasons given. Susan Roberts, Giuliani & Kull, project engineer, requested "west' be changed to "east' in condition #6 for clarity or state "as shown on the tentative map." When they have decided what to do regarding the sanitary sewer, there are conditions (10, 14, 18) which are related to the sewer. Regarding the fire hydrant, she has a letter from the fire department which deferred all fire department requirements which include the fire hydrant until parcel 1 is developed. Regarding the pump station, it was designed with no expansion. Jeff Peterson noted that in the Subdivision section of the Municipal Code there is some flexibility for delaying improvements. Les Earnest, Pathways Committee, noted that in 1997 the City Council adopted a revised pathway plan for this area which includes a path along the alternate route that was suggested by the Pathway Committee. At that time there was no knowledge of how this property would be 440 subdivided. When the Pathway Committee recognized that the route on the plan would be futile Planning Commission Minutes Approved 7/26/00 July 12, 2000 Page 10 based on how it would be subdivided, they suggested instead to follow the creek route. The Page Mill Road route is not an alternative (not desired). Scott Vanderlip, Pathways Committee, stated the path is on the master pathway plan, and easily buildable. The impact on the adjacent property would be very little. If interested, the Pathway Committee could meet the applicants and Commission on the site to view first hand the proposed route. Commissioner Clow asked if everyone in Town had any notification regarding the pathway map as it may be helpful if people would be notified prior to proposing a project. Mr. Cottrell noted that he was not the only one who objects to the pathway; it's his neighbors also. This is not a simple pathway as there is a deep ditch on Via Feliz which will require a bridge which will not be inexpensive. There is an alternative, Page Mill Road, although it is not the nicest place for walking, etc. but its there. Regarding the diagonal pathway, yes it has been used but without the permission of the owner. H has lived on the property for 23 years and has only been asked once by a horseman if he could cross his property. He has put up NO TRESPASSING signs and has had damage to his property all by horseman who like to take this shortcut. Heinz Furthmayr, 13500 South Fork Lane, stated there is an existing pathway along Page Mill Road. Although people travel fast on this road, the speed signs indicate the speed limit is 25 MPH. He was not in favor of creating a new pathway when there is an existing one. 4 CLOSED PUBLIC HEARING Commissioner Clow felt under -grounding the electric is a standard requirement when subdividing. He would be in favor of under -grounding the electric utilities at least to the applicant's home. He would delete the pathway requirement noting that they have heard from three neighbors, all of whom are against it. He did not feel in this particular neighborhood one additional pathway is desired. For the other standard subdivision conditions, he would like staff to find a way to require on Parcel 1, when it is developed, require fire hydrant, underground their own lines, any sewer connection, etc. and make that requirement as binding as if someone was subdividing. Commissioner Wong stated according to code the improvements need to be done. They need to be consistent to other subdivisions. He does recognize that parcel 1 will not be developed for sometime. He would recommend submitting the application to Council for approval and let the Council decide if they want to accept the variance. Commissioner Vitu agreed. Code indicates that the improvements need to be done prior to subdivision. She is sympathetic to the fact that the lot is not intending to be developed. If the Council chooses to over rule that, it would be their decision. She was not in favor of the pathway on this property. There is not neighborhood support but oppression and there is an alternate path on Page Mill Road. Regarding sewer versus septic she would support the septic system and waive the sewer requirement for a two lot subdivision. Planning Commission Minutes Approved 7/26/00 July 12, 2000 Page I I kfir Chairman Gottlieb concurred with the requirement for improvements. Perhaps they can handle it either through an extension of the subdivision with bonds but she did not feel they could recommend the applicant does not have to put in the improvements. She did feel the applicant could either have sewer or septic. She is sympathetic regarding the pathway, however felt they were very important. She would prefer not using Page Mill Road as it is too dangerous. MOTION FAILED DUE TO A LACK OF A SECOND: Motion by Chairman Gottlieb to accept the pathway recommendation. MOTION SECONDED AND PASSED: Motion by Commissioner Clow and seconded by Commissioner Vitu to delete the pathway requirement. AYES: Commissioners Clow, Vitu & Wong NOES: Chairman Gottlieb ABSTAIN: Commissioner Cottrell MOTION SECONDED AND PASSED: Motion by Commissioner Wong and seconded by Commissioner Vitu to recommend approval to the City Council for a Negative Declaration and the proposed Tentative Parcel Map for a two lot subdivision, Lands of Cottrell, 13480 North Fork Road, subject to the conditions of approval with the following additions/changes: #6, change first sentence to read "The applicant shall grant a conservation easement covering portions of both Parcel 1 and Parcel 2 to the Town of Los Altos Hills as shown on the approved conceptual development plan."; #12 add to the end of the first sentence "or provide a letter from the Fire Department authorizing deferral of installation until time of building permit issuance."; #14, add "or private septic systems. In the event of sanitary sewer installation..."; delete #15, pathway requirement; and #18, new wording "Payment of Storm Drainage fees, Park and Recreation fees, Pathway in -lieu fees, Roadway in -lieu and all other applicable fees shall be required prior to recordation of the Final Map". AYES: Commissioners Clow, Vitu & Wong NOES: Chairman Gottlieb (pathway objection) ABSTAIN: Commissioner Cottrell This item will appear on a City Council public hearing agenda. 3.4 Text Amendment of Section 9-1.306 of the Los Altos Hills Municipal Code. Staff had nothing further to add. OPENED PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED PUBLIC HEARING MOTION SECONDED AND PASSED: Motion by Commissioner Clow and seconded by Commissioner Vint to recommend that the City Council approve the text amendment to Section 9-1.306 of the Los Altos Hills Municipal Code. Planning Commission Minutes Approved 7/26/00 July 12, 2000 Page 12 06 AYES: Chairman Gottlieb, Commissioners Cottrell, Clow, Vitu & Wong NOES: None This item will appear on a City Council public hearing agenda. 3.5 Text Amendment of Sections 10-1.1109 and 10-2.1313 (b) of the Los Altos Hills Municipal Code regarding appeals from decisions. Chairman Gottlieb gave a brief background of the recommendation as stated in the staff report. Commissioner Clow questioned the Commission passing a measure which would bind the City Council. He felt a continuance could be a device by which a project strung out. Staff noted it is the obligation of the Commission to make it clear to the applicant that the project can be continued (working together on issues) or denied. Discussion ensued regarding how this issue came about (a Councilmember appealing continuance items). It was felt that a continuance was a useful tool. MOTION SECONDED AND PASSED: Motion by Commissioner Clow and seconded by Commissioner Cottrell to recommend that the City Council approve the text amendment to Sections 10-1.1109 and 10-2.1313 (b) of the Los Altos Hills Municipal Code regarding appeals from decisions, recommending that the Planning Commission advise the applicant of their rights 4 and their option at the meeting that they can request a denial rather than a continuance. AYES: Chairman Gottlieb, Commissioners Cottrell, Vitu, Wong & Clow NOES: None This item will appear on a City Council public hearing agenda. 4. OLD BUSINESS 4.1 Report from subcommittees. None NEW BUSINESS -none 6. REPORT FROM THE CITY COUNCIL MEETING 6.1 Planning Commission Representative for July 6ih — meeting cancelled 6.2 Planning Commission Representative for July 20ih —Commissioner Cottrell k Planning Commission Minutes Approved 7/26/00 July 12, 2000 Page 13 7. APPROVAL OF MINUTES 7.1 Approval of June 28, 2000 minutes PASSED BY CONSENSUS: By Commissioners Cottrell and Wong to approve the June 28, 2000 minutes. 8. REPORT FROM FAST TRACK MEETING -JULY 11 2000 8.1 LANDS OF GRRVIM, 28060 Laura Court (77-00-ZP-SD-GD); A request for a Site Development Permit for a new residence, pool, spa and gazebo. Approved with conditions. 9. ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned by consensus at 11:15 p.m. Respectfully submitted, (( La/ni" Srtvth �w Planning Secretary