Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout08/22/2013Planning Commission Minutes Approved October 16, 2012 August 22, 2012 Page 1 Minutes of a Special Meeting Town of Los Altos Hills PLANNING COMMISSION WEDNESDAY, August 22, 2012, 7:00 p.m. Council Chambers, 26379 Fremont Road 1. ROLL CALL AND PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE A special meeting of the Planning Commission was called to order at 7:00 p.m. in the Council Chambers at Town Hall. Present: Chairman Partridge and Commissioners: Couperous, Abraham, Mandle Absent: Commissioner Harpootlian Staff: Debbie Pedro, Planning Director; Brian Froelich, Associate Planner; Jaime McAvoy, Planning Secretary; Deborah Padovan, City Clerk 2. PRESENTATIONS FROM THE FLOOR Debbie Pedro, Planning Director introduced Jaime McAvoy, who will be serving as Planning Secretary for the meeting. 3. PUBLIC HEARINGS Planning Commission Ex Parte Contacts Policy Disclosure: None 3.1 FENCE ORDINANCE STUDY SESSION. Proposed amendments to Title 10, Chapter 1, Article 5, Fences, Walls, and Columns of the Los Altos Hills Municipal Code. The amendments include language clarifications and required setbacks for fences, other than four foot tall rail fences, on properties over two (2) acres in size (staff-Brian Froelich). Roger Spreen, Open Space Committee Chair and member of the Fence Ad-Hoc Committee provided the background and goals of the Committee. The Committee was formed in 2011 to address issues of perimeter fencing, property line disputes, wildlife movement, and the fencing effects on the Town’s rural atmosphere. An online survey was done in November 2011 to gauge the sense of the community’s interest on fences. The Committee also reviewed the Green Sheets, history of the Town’s fence ordinance, and fence ordinances of surrounding communities. Planning Commission Minutes Approved October 16, 2012 August 22, 2012 Page 2 Brian Froelich, Associate Planner presented the staff report. The Committee is recommending two changes: minor text amendments to clarify the ordinance and modifications to the fence setback and height standards for 2+ acre properties. For properties between 2 to 3 acres, only 4 foot tall rail fences would be allowed along interior property lines and a 6 foot tall solid fence will be allowed with a 10 foot setback. For 3+ acre properties, the set-back would be increased to 20 feet. A town-wide postcard notice has been sent to all property owners within the Town and a separate letter was mailed to homeowners with properties larger than 2 acres. Because this is a study session, no formal action is requested of the Commission. The item will be scheduled for a public hearing at a future date and the City Council will hold two additional public hearings before any ordinance change becomes law. Commissioner Abraham questioned staff about the online survey conducted in November 2011, clarifications on legal requirements for the Town to accommodate wildlife, and the requirements of the newly implemented neighbor courtesy notice on fence applications. CHAIRMAN PARTRIDGE OPENED THE PUBLIC HEARING John Radford, Councilmember and member of the Fence Ad-Hoc Committee addressed the validity of the fence survey. The survey was based on 900 residents that wanted to continually participate in surveys from the Town. The purpose of the fence survey was simply to look for directional feedback. According to the comments received on the survey, 65% of residents felt that with lots over 2 acres that there should be some required set-backs for fences. Walt Wilson, Buena Vista Drive, purchased his 3.5 acre property 14 years ago. His property was reduced to 2.5 acres due to right of way dedication and conservation easement requirements. The new fence requirement would limit the use of an additional quarter acre of his property. He further states that a solution is being proposed but the problem is undefined. Helen Cunningham, Central Drive states that her property is 2 acres, and she opposes the proposed amendment because the cost of fencing is now doubled because she cannot share the cost with her neighbor; the required setback will result in loss of up to 21% of her land to the town without any compensation; there are safety and privacy concerns because of potential human traffic within the setback corridors; and the setbacks will create ambiguous property boundaries. She also believes that the fence survey is flawed. Donald McCauley, Ravensbury Ave, says that according to the survey, the majority of the residents recognize and appreciate the rural atmosphere of the Town and want to preserve it. Therefore, there is no need for an ordinance to dictate it. Jay Shideler, Via Ventana Way, states that the one-size-fits-all formula does not work. The location of his house is right at the 30’ setback. The required fence setback would wipe out 15 to 20 trees in the setback on his property. Even with a fence, the deer would still have access to this property. Planning Commission Minutes Approved October 16, 2012 August 22, 2012 Page 3 Eleanor Caughlan, West Loyola Drive, states that she is opposed this proposal because it is based on a flawed questionnaire with limited distribution. Most people enjoy wildlife up to a point, but are not willing to give up10-25% of their land to provide corridors for animals. She owns 3 parcels totaling 5.5 acres. Most wildlife goes through the land regularly and does not need perimeter corridors for access. She is also concerned about the loss of property value. Carl Cottrell, North Fork Lane, started on the ad-hoc committee but had to resign for scheduling reasons. This proposal ignores the locations of homes on the property. He has 3 acres and the house next to him has 7 acres, but their homes are only 75 feet apart. To have a 6 foot fence, they would have to give up half the setback, creating a 40 foot space that no one can use except for the animals. The proposal is an answer for which there is no question. He suggests that the Committee study home locations and how they will be affected by the proposed set- backs. Karen Lemes, Moody Road, believes that the fence ordinance will help keep the Town’s rural feel and protect animals. Bill Paulson, Dori Lane supports pathways and open space but opposes the fence ordinance. He is afraid that it will encourage animals, including predators, to migrate to Los Altos Hills, bringing dear borne ticks and lyme disease. The proposed fence policy amounts to converting private land for public park purpose and will likely invite trespass. Jennifer Basiji, Fawn Creek Court, has been a resident since 1988 and she supports the fence ordinance. She appreciates the wildlife. The Town cannot keep out animals anyway and the proposal will help them. Charlie Perrell, Silent Hills Lane, says the ordinance is not necessary. It will pit neighbors against each other. A certain class of residents is being targeted by this ordinance. The setback requirement will devalue property and the survey is flawed because the questions are biased and leading. He is very much opposed to the proposal. Paul Jenson, Campo Vista Lane, believes this is over regulation. If the Town wants land they should buy it and not penalize the residents. He thinks the ordinance is discriminatory against larger properties. He agrees that the questions on the survey were misleading. Jim Patmore, Central Drive, agrees with most of what’s already been said. He thinks this is a solution for a problem that does not exist. The Town is confiscating land for no reason. Jim Basiji, Fawn Creek Court, says the Town has turned into a gridded community. He supports the ordinance. Bob Fenwick, Elena Road addressed the issues of lot size, aesthetics and wildlife. He says the proposal is a solution looking for a problem. The ordinance did not consider the placement of houses. He urged the Commission to not pass the ordinance. Planning Commission Minutes Approved October 16, 2012 August 22, 2012 Page 4 Larry Russell, Lennox Way, resident of Los Altos Hills for 36 years. He questioned how the fence proposal would impact public and private recreational properties and schools. Terry Carver, Via Ventana Way, says that adding fence setbacks is not going to make the “grid” less visible and a 10’ setback will not help the emergency access issue. George Clifford, Moody Road, strongly supports the fence ordinance. He says the ordinance is well thought out. The Town survey clearly speaks about preserving the rural environment. He thinks the Planning Commission can handle cases where there are problems with the fence setbacks and home locations. Bill Helvey, Berkshire Drive strongly opposes the fence ordinance. He asks what percent of the lots in Town are 2 or 3 acres. Rachel Tasch, Executive Director of Congregation Beth Am says her congregation was not consulted by the ad hoc fence committee. They were not informed of the meetings. She would like to know what the variance process involve and whether institutional properties can apply for variances. Gordon Stitt, Lomita Linda Court, says the ordinance is sweeping and does not take into consideration variations among the lots. The rules will be very difficult to apply. Rebecca Stirling, Natoma Road, says she respected the Town’s rural nature. However, she opposes the ordinance because it does not address the true problem of aesthetics. A fence ordinance for wildlife corridors should be addressed separately. Sue Welch, Edgerton Road, thanked the ad hoc committee for their work. The proposal addresses significant needs and is an appropriate addition to the Fence regulations. Her property will be affected and she strongly supports the ordinance. Benefits of the proposed setback include keeping an open character of the town, slow down the suburban fortress look creeping in, reduce property line dispute, and prevent fences from blocking wildlife. The State requires the Town to manage wildlife because it is a public resource. Bob Wayman, Moody Road, does not care what Portola Valley does and is opposed to this ordinance. He thinks the proposal is arbitrary, extremely irrational and biased against large property owners. Gary Wimmer, Willowpond Lane, does not support the ordinance or the way the data was gathered and used to support the ordinance. It was misleading. One size does not fit all. Beth Gilliman, Silent Hills Lane, says the ordinance will have negative environmental impacts destroying landscaping and creating too many fences. The Town already has wildlife corridors, they are called pathways. Planning Commission Minutes Approved October 16, 2012 August 22, 2012 Page 5 Linda Swan, Burke Road, opposes the ordinance because it does not help solve the gridding problem if it only applies to 11% of the lots. She agrees with the previous speaker that the pathways already provide for wildlife movement. Dru Anderson, Saddle Court, asks whether the proposal will solve the issues concerning fences that come before the Commission. She thinks more work needs to be done. David O’Keefe, W. Loyola Drive, thought the timing of the notice was bad. Many of his neighbors are out of Town and didn’t know about it. The survey was too generic. He doesn’t see a problem with fences. The setback requirement is a taking and homeowners should receive compensation. Diane Wox, Sherlock Court, is vehemently opposed to the ordinance. She asks why propose an ordinance where most if not all those affected will ask for a variance. Lisa Warren says she dislikes the fences and mini mansions going up in Town. Chain link fences should be eliminated. The regulations should apply to all lots. Nancy Couperus, Open Space Committee and fence ad hoc committee member, says that the Committee was tasked with addressing the problem of fences. The Committee spent a lot of time looking at other communities and what they have done about fencing. The proposal is modeled after Portola Valley’s ordinance which is quite a bit stricter. She says this proposal is a good starting point. CHAIR PARTRIDGE CLOSED THE PUBLIC HEARING Discussion ensued amongst the Commissioners. Commissioner Couperous says that the ordinance would create a problem because it does not address the siting of an existing home on the property relative to the fence setback requirement. Every lot is unique and a cookie cutter approach does not work. He suggests that if the intent of the ordinance is achieved, then an exception may be granted. He thinks that proposed ordinance is a stake in the ground, but each lot should be looked at on a case by case basis. Commissioner Mandle heard a lot of people questioned whether there was a problem with fencing and thinks the Town needs to provide more information to help residents understand the problem. She supports the proposal and thinks the ordinance is moving in the right direction but it needs a lot of refinement. Commissioner Abraham did not see any need for the fence ordinance. It is a solution to a non- existent problem. The required fence setbacks would result in loss of usable land and loss of property value. The Town should not emulate other cities like Portola Valley or Saratoga and just do what is appropriate for Los Altos Hills. He recommends dropping the current proposal and to work on cleaning up the existing ordinance instead. Planning Commission Minutes Approved October 16, 2012 August 22, 2012 Page 6 Chair Partridge says he likes deer fences but also does not like properties being “walled off”. The proposed fence ordinance needs more work because it will create parallel tunnels and properties with different sizes are treated differently. There needs to be a balance between neighbors who wants a fence and those that would like to keep an open feel to the property. He suggests limiting the total length of fencing and looking at how open space easements may help accomplish what the committee is trying to achieve. He recommends sending the proposal back to the Committee. 4. OLD BUSINESS – none 5. NEW BUSINESS – none 6. REPORTS FROM THE CITY COUNCIL MEETINGS 6.1 Planning Commission Representative for July 31-Commissioner Partridge 6.2 Planning Commission Representative for August 23-Commissioner Abraham 6.3 Planning Commission Representative for September 20-Commissioner Harpootlian 6.4 Planning Commission Representative for October 18-Commissioner Couperus 7. APPROVAL OF MINUTES 7.1 Approval of July 19, 2012 minutes. MOTION MADE, SECONDED, AND PASSED BY VOICE VOTE: Motion by Chair Partridge and seconded by Commissioner Abraham to approve the July 19, 2012, minutes as corrected. AYES: Commissioners: Mandle, Abraham, Couperous and Chair Partridge NOES: None ABSENT: Commissioner Harpootlian ABSTAIN: None 8. REPORTS FROM FAST TRACK MEETINGS – SEPTEMBER 18, OCTOBER 9, 2012 8.1 LANDS OF ROO; 12451 Stonebrook Drive: File #233-11-ZP-SD- GD; A request for a Site Development permit for a 4,085 square foot two-story new residence (Maximum height 26’-3”) and detached 520 square foot accessory structure. In addition, the applicant is requesting the removal of one (1) heritage oak tree. CEQA review: Categorical Exemption per Section 15303(a) (staff- Cynthia Richardson). 8.2 LANDS OF GOODGER; 27729 Briones Court: File # 116-12-ZP- SD-VAR; A request for a Site Development Permit for a 5,759 square foot two-story residence (Maximum height 25’6”) and a minor variance for eave encroachment of up to two (2) feet into the east side Planning Commission Minutes Approved October 16, 2012 August 22, 2012 Page 7 yard setbacks. CEQA review: Categorical Exemption per Section 15303(a) (staff-Nicole Horvitz). 8.3 LANDS OF RAMAKRISHNAN; 27665 Via Cerro Gordo: File #301- 11-ZP-SD-GD; A request for a Site Development Permit for a 4,991 square foot two-story new residence (Maximum height 25’) and a 600 square foot swimming pool. CEQA review: Categorical Exemption per Section 15303 (a)(e) (staff-Cynthia Richardson). 8.4 LANDS OF EAGLE; 12230 Windsor Court: File #137-12-ZP-SD; A request for a Site Development Permit for a 29 square foot single story addition (Maximum height 23’) and major interior remodel. CEQA review: Categorical Exemption per Section 15303(a) (staff- Nicole Horvitz) 9. REPORTS FROM SITE DEVELOPMENT MEETINGS – AUGUST 28, SEPTEMBER 11, SEPTEMBER 18, OCTOBER 2, OCTOBER 9, 2012 9.1 LANDS OF FOSTER; 13060 La Paloma Road; File #138-12-ZP-SD, A request for a Site Development Permit for Landscape Screening of a new two story residence that was approved at the Fast Track meeting on April 26, 2011. CEQA review: Categorical Exemption per Section 15304 (b) (staff-Nicole Horvitz). 9.2 LANDS OF ILNICKI; 27349 Julietta Lane; File#127-12-ZP-SD, A request for a Site Development Permit for Landscape Screening of a new single story residence with a basement that was approved at the Planning Commission meeting on February 4, 2010. CEQA review: Categorical Exemption per Section 15304 (b) (staff-Nicole Horvitz). 9.3 LANDS OF BUDGE; 24175 Dawnridge Drive; File#156-12-ZP-SD, A request for a Site Development Permit for a landscape Screening plan for a 5,706 square foot two-story residence with a 2,883 square foot basement/bunker, a 800 square foot swimming pool, and a 315 square foot accessory building approved on October 7, 2010. CEQA review: Categorical Exemption per Section 15304 (staff-Cynthia Richardson). 9.4 LANDS OF LA PALOMA PROPERTIES, LLC; 13310 La Paloma Road; File #114-12-ZP-SD, A request for a Site Development Permit to convert an existing 8,784 square foot tennis court to a 8,520 square foot pavilion (Max height 26’) CEQA review: Categorical Exemption per Section 15303 (e) (staff-Nicole Horvitz) Planning Commission Minutes Approved October 16, 2012 August 22, 2012 Page 8 9.5 LANDS OF LEE & FA; 28263 Christophers Lane; File #166-12-ZP- SD, A request for a Site Development Permit for Landscape Screening of a 1,949 square foot first and second story addition and a 1,982 square foot basement approved at the Fast Track hearing on February 17, 2009. CEQA review: Categorical Exemption per Section 15304 (b) (staff-Nicole Horvitz). 9.6 LANDS OF SAWKA; 12838 Concepcion Road; File#158-12-ZP-SD; A request for a Site Development Permit for a 1,066 square foot single story addition (Maximum height 17’) and interior remodel. CEQA review: Categorical Exemption per Section 15303 (a) (staff-Nicole Horvitz). 10. ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned by consensus at 9:57 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Jaime McAvoy Planning Secretary The minutes for the August 22, 2012 Special Planning Commission meeting were approved on October 16, 2012.