HomeMy WebLinkAbout07/31/1972PLANNING COMMISSION
%l TOWN OF LOS ALTOS HILLS
W MINUTES OF A REGULAR ADJOURNED MEETING
July 31, 1972
Chairman Thomas P. McReynolds called the Regular Adjourned Meeting of the Planning
Commission of the Town of Los Altos Hills to order at 7:45 P. M. In the Council
Chambers of the Town Hall, 26379 Fremont Road, Los Altos Hills, California. The
following members answered roll call: Commissioners Lachenbruch, Magruder, Mueller,
Perkins, Spencer, Welsbart and Chairman McReynolds. Absent: None.
CITY COUNCIL REPRESENTATIVE: Councilwoman Mary C. Davey
APPROVAL OF MINUTES: July 17, 1972.
Commissioner Spencer moved, seconded by Magruder and carried by majority vote
(Commissioners Lachenbruch and Perkins abstaining because of absence at 7/17 meeting)
that the Minutes of July 17, 1972 be approved as submitted.
COMAUN I CAT I ONS:
1. City Manager Pro Tem Jerry Crabtree read letter from Mr. and Mrs. John D. Steers,
11641 Buena Vista Drive, dated July 21, 1972 (received at Town Hall 7/28/72)
advising that there had been no results from their appeal to clear poison oak and
greasewood from some of their acreage without a Site Development Permit in order
to eliminate a fire hazard and that the Fire Chief had stated unconditionally
( that the land was only to be cleared by hand.
4b/ Staff reported that as a result of the Planning Commission discussion at the
July 17th meeting, a letter was sent to Mrs. Steers on July 19 that such work
(tilling) would be permitted without a Site Development Permit under the Town's
Municipal Code and if done In accordance with the Fire Marshal's requirements.
Planning Commission concurred that perhaps these letters had passed in the
mail and that the problem has been resolved, but the Commission again stressed
that such permission to eliminate the fire hazard was in no way to constitute
pregrading of the land.
ANNOUNCEMENTS:
I. City Manager Pro Tem reported Mr. Lee J. Kubby's appeal to the City Council dated
July 18, 1972 (sent to Commissioners on 7/26/72) was heard at the July 24th
meeting of the City Council and on a 3 - I vote overruled the recommendations of
the Planning Commission to grant the variance (Alternate "B").
Commissioner Perkins stated for the record that hewas not present when the
Commission denied without prejudice the Kubby appl scat l on (7/17/72) but believed
Mr. Kubby's letter of 7118 was not based on sound foundations, particularly
Mr. Kubby's reference to fences (fences are not prohibited but must be no higher
than 6' if within 251 of the property line) and the Baumgartner variance being
used as a precedent, since the Commission does not use precedence as a guide to
decisions, and In any case the Baumgartner variance did not relate to the Kubby
variance.
Objection was also expressed by Commissioner Magruder as to Mr. Kubby's inferencr
that the Commission had made a commitment on the Northcutt variance (still perd-
Ing) and Commissioner Lachenbruch was of the opinion that Mr. Kubby'sstatement
'The unreasonableness of the dental of our application, and the unequal treat-
ment rendered by the Commission depending on who the applicant is, ........."
was an Incorrect implication as he has known for many years the Planning
Commissioners working with these decisions and did not think this was a relevant
point.
Commission was hopeful that specific guidelines for swimming pools and tennis
courts will resolve these problems.
COMMITTEE REPORTS:
1. Commissioner Spencer reported he had attended the PPC Hillside Subcommittee
meeting, at which there was a presentation by a geologist discussing the hazards
In the area with relation to the Importance of various factors In determining
desirable and undesirable hill sites.
2. ComIssloner Spencer also attended the Planning Policy Committee meeting, at
which time the Baylands Study was recommended for submittal to the various
governmental bodies.
3. Comnlssioner Mueller reported he had attended the Urban Technology Conference
In San Francisco, the discussions centering on urban transportation, environment
and technological transfer. Commissioner Mueller felt that while this was an
Interesting conference, It mostly concerned larger cities.
SCHEDULED ITEM NO. I:
VARIANCE REQUEST OF DR. MICHAEL E. NORTHCUTT FOR TENNIS COURT AND 12' HIGH FENCE
WITHIN SETBACKS AT 12720 DIANNE DRIVE... continued from July 17th meeting.
This variance request was denied without prejudice at the July 17th Planning Commis-
sion to allow the applicant to revise his plot plan to arrive at a more suitable
location for the tennis court. Town Planner noted the revised map placed the court
further up the lot toward the house porch and away from the 10' drainage easement.
The variances now requested are setbacks from 30' to 29' at the northerly corner and
301 to 20' at easterly corner of court on the Jesuit Retreat side of his property,
and 301 to 201 at easterly corner and 30' to 151 at southerly corner of court on the
George Seidman side of his property, and permit a fence 12' high within setbacks.
The revised map further reflected a modification of the topography and the bank on
the northeast side of the property is more realistically shown. Fill will be
approximately 61 - 71 and there will be some cut of approximately 61 to the top.
This will require grading within 101 of the property line and will require an ex-
ception by the Site Development Committee, or If not granted, a retaining wall will
be required.
Mr. Vaughn Shahinlan, applicant's engineer, emphasized that the 101 storm drainage
easement prevents the use of 75' of the lot depth at the northeast corner of the lot,
representing an exceptional circumstance by severely limiting the use of the property.
He further stated this Is the best location of the court in the Interests of the
neighbors and that the adjacent neighbors, Messrs. Seidman and Witcoxson,in fact favor
the application and feel It will not harm their property.
Dr. Northcutt stated he has shortened the court from the original 1201 to 115' and
It Is still near the porch.
MOTION AND SECOND: Commissioner Spencer moved, seconded by Magruder, that In view
of the precedent established by the City Council that the revised variance request
of Dr. Michael E. Northcutt be granted.
The remaining members of the Commission felt the wording of this Motion was unfair
to the Council and Dr. Northcutt, and that the Motion be more properly worded.
-2-
Dr. Northcutt Var. cont'd.:
VOTE: AYES: Commissioners Spencer and Magruder. NOES: Commissioners Lachenbruch,
Mueller, Perkins, Welsbart, and Chairman McReynolds. The Motion to approve because
kW of Council precedent failed.
MOTION AND SECOND: Commissioner Welsbart moved, seconded by Spencer, that the
Planning Commission recommend to the Council approval of the variance request of
Dr. Michael E. Northcutt (V-375-72) for reduction In setback requirements for tennis
court at 12720 Dianne Drive from 30' to 29' at northerly corner and 30' to 20' at
easterly corner of court on the Jesuit Retreat side, and 30' to 20' at easterly
corner and 30' to 151 at southerly corner of court on the Seidman side, and permit
a fence 12' high, in accordance with the six criteria of the Town's Municipal Code,
Section 9-5.905(b).
Commissioner Spencer stated for the record that the reason for his first Motion was
that he felt the action taken by the City Council borders on changing our Town's
Zoning Ordinance without benefit of legal procedure. Commissioner Spencer said he
had looked at past variances since July 1970, and of those denied, a lesser variance
would have been acceptable under Council criteria.
Commission discussion ensued on each of the six findings prescribed by the Municipal
Code. The majority of the Commissioners were of the opinion that the six findings
could be satisfied in view of the exceptional circumstances of the storm drainage
easement and the fact the adjacent residing landowners do not object to this variance.
Lower fence height was discussed, but Comnisslon concurred that It would remain at
121 as requested by the applicant.
Further discussion ensued as to the conditions that should be placed on this applica-
tion, and the following amendment to the above Motion resulted:
AMENDMENT TO MOTION TO APPROVE: Commissioner Welsbart moved, seconded by Spencer,
to amend the above Motion by attaching the following conditions to such approval:
(1) there may be lighting for the tennis court, but all lights must be out after
10:00 P. M.;
(2) all tennis court lights must be shielded to prevent shedding of light on
adjacent property owners; and
(3) reasonable landscaping to soften lines of the court as approved by the Site
Development Committee.
VOTE: AYES: Commissioners Lachenbruch, Magruder, Spencer, Welsbart and Chairman
McReynolds. NOES: Camnissioner Perkins. ABSTAINED: Commissioner Mueller.
SCHEDULED ITEM NO. 4: (Taken out of order of Agenda)
TENTATIVE MAP OF ELSIE WRIGHT (388-72) 2 lots, 12.2± gross acres, Elena at Natome
Roads. Engr. P. Nowack.
Staff reviewed the applicant's proposal to subdivide a 12.2+ gross acre parcel Into
two lots (Parcel NI - 10.2 acres, and Parcel /2 being 2.0 acres on which there Is
an existing house and driveway), located on the north side of Elena Road, opposite
Natcma Road.
Town Planner, George G. Mader, noted that the square shape of Parcel 02 could
produce future problems when Parcel pl Is further subdivided, and that the sub-
divider should be aware of this. He felt there should be an overall plotting map
for the full development of the acreage, but the applicant Is not prepared to do so
at this point.
(fir" Commissioner Lachenbruch, of the MAPS Committee, noted that the Emergency Slope
Density Ordinance (X194) had not been used by the applicant's engineer In estimating
the slope, which was purported to be 18% for the entire parcel. Commission concurred
-3-
Wriaht Tent. Mao cont'd
that the slope density should be reflected under the present ordinance for Parcel #1
and Parcel #2, since this could affect the potential number of building sites for
Parcel #1 when further subdivided and prevent further subdivision of Parcel #2.
Engineer Nowack stated he will submit new slope density calculations and noted that
the new owner does not Intend to subdivide, even if he could.
Pathway Committee Chairman Robert E. Stutz presented Pathway Committee recommendations
as follows: dedication of a 10' wide path easement along the S/W, N/W and N/E sides
of the property, and clear poison oak on that portion of Parcel #1 opposite Natoma
Road. Mr. Stutz also requested that an "Equestrian Crossing" sign be placed at
this blind intersection.
Commission reviewed path plans and In view of the lengthy path dedications recommend-
ed on three sides of the property, requested the Pathway Chairman to substantiate In
writing before the Commission meetings the need for each recommended path easement
and Its relationship to the Master Path Plan.
Mr. Stutz explained the need for these easements was a connection to paths to
property along the Freeway and agreed to the future to substantiate in writing the
Committee's recommendations.
MOTION, SECONDED AND CARRIED: Comm lssioner Perkins moved, seconded by Weisbart and
carried unanimously, to prepare the Check List.
In addition to routine items, the following requirements were written Into the Check
List:
1) Dedication of 30' of right-of-way from centerline along entire frontage of
Elena Road. Storm Drainage Fee for Parcels #1 and #2, and In -lieu fee for Park
and Open Space for Parcel #2.
2) Dedication of 10' wide path easements along S/W, N/W and N/E sides of property,
but upon review of the Planning Commission two (2) years from the date of
Council approval, these easements will be abandoned unless there Is a
demonstrated need for said easements as part of the Master Path Plan.
3) Clear poison oak on that portion of Parcel #1 opposite Natuna Road, and Install
an "Equestrian Crossing" sign In accordance with the recommendations of the
Pathway Committee.
4) Conditional Exceptions: A. Parcel #2 shall be shown as complying with slope
density requirements per Ordinance No. 194.
B. Parcel #1 is "NOT A BUILDING SITE" and road Improve-
ments along Elena Road are deferred.
MOTION, SECONDED AND CARRIED: Commissioner Spencer moved, seconded by Mueller and
passed unanimously, that the Planning Commission recommend to the City Council
approval of the Tentative Map of Elsie Wright (388-72) 2 lots, 12.2+ gross acres,
subject to the conditions of the Check List.
RECESS: 9:50 - 10:00 P. M.
SCHEDULED ITEM NO. 2:
REVIEW AND ACTION ON "DRAFT" OF RESPONSE TO BE RECOMMENDED TO THE CITY COUNCIL FOR
TRANSMITTAL TO THE PLANNING POLICY COMMITTEE RE: "WORKING PAPER - PRODUCTION
OBJECTIVES FOR ASSISTED HOUSING" JOINT CITIES -COUNTY HOUSING ELEMENT PROGRAM -DRAFT 5.
Commissioner Mueller reported he and Councilwoman Miller attended the July 13 meeting
of the PPC Housing Advisory Subcommittee in San Jose, at which meeting the Los Altos
Hills Planning Commission letter dated June 30, 1972 regarding "Draft 5 - Working
-4-
Paper - Production Objectives for Assisted Housing" was read. It was the only
dissent at the meeting, however, several delegates to other cities did question
( whether certain requirements with which their cities could not comply. Charts were
fir' presented by the Subcommittee, which Commissioner Mueller felt were poorly prepared
and grossly Inaccurate with certain weighted Items, and a summary was presented
from professional planners Indicating the report was ready for presentation to the
Planning Policy for their review and disposition.
Commissioner Mueller then proposed that a Study Session be held to prepare a
minority report on a more substantial level of Investigation of the problem, showing
the Inconsistencies of the Subcommittee report as It now stands and with Input from
the basis of Commissioners Perkins' and Lachenbruch's discussion at the Planning
Commission's June 12 Study Session, which was detailed in a memo to Mr. Mader from
the City Manager dated June 16, 1972, as well as additional Input from the Planning
Commissioners themselves and the Town Planner. This Minority Report would then be
sent to the Council for their approval and submittal through the Town's delegates to
the Planning Policy Committee as an agended Item and a copy of the report also sent
to all cities In PPC prior to the meeting. OR, It could become an Important
documented report for the Town so It understands the virtues of this working paper,
and would also complement the Town's Zoning Ordinance.
Commisslon concurred to set a Study Session on the above criteria for next meeting.
OTHER BUSINESS BY PLANNING COMMISSIONERS:
REORGANIZATION OF PLANNING FUNCTIONS.
Town Planner, George G. Mader, reviewed the Tentative Chart as follows, which
efforts were the result of the July 27th meeting of the Reorganization Committee
appointed by the Council:
The Planning Commission would retain Its present name, but consist of five members
(instead of seven) appointed by the City Council for four year staggered terms and
shall rotate bi-annually with members of the Board of Planning Administration, meet -
Ing twice a month at night. Their duties will Include Public Hearings on the
*General Plan, Conditional Use Permits, *Amendments to the Zoning Ordinance,
Subdivisions of five lots and up or when unusually difficult four lot subdivisions
are In a basically undeveloped area, *Capital Improvement Programming, and Appeal
of Administrative Decision (* - required by State law).
A new board is being proposed called "The Board of Planning Administration" (BoPA),
which shall consist of five members appointed by the City Council for four year
staggered terms and shall rotate bi-annually with other members of the Planning
Corm lssion, meeting twice a month at night. Their duties will Include Public
Hearings on Variances, Annual Review of Conditional Use Permits, Subdivisions up to
four lots, and Appeal of Administrative Decision.
The City Manager plus one member from BoPA will have final review (unless appealed)
on Lot Line Changes (where no potential for additional lots), Site Development
Ordinance, and Building Site Approval. (This is actually an enlargement of the
duties of the Site Development Committee.)
Any action of the Planning Commission, Board of Planning Administration and Staff
may be appealed to the City Council. Certain actions by BoPA and Staff are final,
unless appealed to or a review called for by the City Council.
Mr. Mader pointed out implementation of the above would entail extra meeting nights
and additional work load for the City Manager and Staff, Planner, and secretarial,
which has not yet been resolved.
-5-
Reorganization Committee cont'd.:
Following are the comments from the Commissioners during review:
This chart identifies general objectives. ,
A step in the right direction to separate time-consuming variances, leaving more
time to concentrate on planning.
Another "Miscellaneous" category should be added to Include such Items as Open
Space, Road Circulation.
The first box "General Plan" will cover Open Space, Conservation, Circulation Plan,
Sphere of Influence, Path and Trails Elements, which will get professionalism In
the paths, Land Use, etc.
All subdivisions, regardless of number of lots, should go to (new) Planning Commis-
sion for good planning.
Pathway Committee should be under Planning Commission because of planning In
subdivisions.
Planning functions are presently performed by other bodies and Staff available to
them. How are these potential problems solved by the reorganization.
Wealth of Information not considered In this reorganization.
List priorities.
Number of Planning Commissioners (5) is not adequate - perhaps seven and enable
Planning Comm lssion to assign tasks to subcommittees.
BoPA has five members Instead of three (perhaps more desirable) because of
problem of quorum with three.
(
`r Retain suggested five Planning Commissioners and five BoPA, so sufficient number
of experienced Planning Commissioners available to rotate and then recruit three
new members for a total of ten.
Number is primary - can always expand.
Appoint members to four year terms and to one particular job.
Should appointees be on whatever body they prefer or because they are best suited
to it? If so, how do you get the practical into planning.
Variances should be handled by BoPA comprised of two members with Staff and
Include In their duties Conditional Use Permits and their Annual Reviews.
Goals of the reorganization should be clearly defined with details.
Minimal paid support - will need two planners. Creating more work than solving
or spreading work.
Staggered two year terms and rotation interrupts effectiveness and continuity.
There are Inherent problems in separating variances and subdivisions as they go
together with general planning.
An up-to-date General Plan is long overdue and the reorganization will allow it.
Go forward with plan and flaws will be seen and then adjust.
Relief of variances from thePlanning Commission Agenda would be a general
advantage but does not attack the large Item of planning and Inter-relation of
all planning bodies.
-6-
Reorganization Committee cont'd.:
v Relief for Council, unless they ask for review or there is an appeal.
This
ot
errors by starting Innthisolutionary directi direoject hded ction. all that Is right direction,
Thenfuturenn
will
tell.
It was the unanimous conclusion of the Commission that there should be a change,
but the question remained - how much.
SCHEDULED ITEM NO. 3:
REQUEST FROM CITY COUNCIL FOR PLANNING C"ISSION TO WORK ON GUIDELINES FOR THE
LOCATION OF SWIMMING POOLS AND TENNIS COURTS ON PRIVATE PROPERTY ESPECIALLY AS THEY
RELATE TO SETBACKS.
This Item was carried over to the August 14th Commission meeting.
ADJOURNMENT:
Due to the late hour, the meeting was adjourned at 11:45 P. M.
Respectfully submitted,
VERRY H. CRABTREE
City Manager Pro Tem
iiw mam Town of Los Altos Hills
7/31/72
-7-