Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout05/23/1973PLANNING COMMISSION TOWN OF LOS ALTOS HILLS MINUTES OF A REGULAR MEETING Preceded by a Study Session May 23, 1973 Study Session Reel PC 16; Side I; Track 2 000-256 The Study Session of the Planning Commission of the Town of Los Altos Hills met at 8:00 p,m., with Chairman McReynolds presiding, A. ITEMS FOR DISCUSSION I. Discussion of Proposed City Charter and the inclusion of the Town's basic zoning philosophy In such a Charter. ( Continued from May 9, 1973 meeting.) Mr. Lawson reviewed the charge made to the Commission by the City Council and what he f91t the Council would desire in the way of information. Mr. Lawson felt that the Commission was requested to review the content of a charter In the event that in the future the Town chose to adopt a,jQItytar Charter form of government. - Mr. Lawson felt that the Commission was being asked to comment and make -- recommendations on what they felt should be included in the City Charter with particular attention paid to the zoning area. He felt that a cursory review by the Commission and discussion of the areas that pertained to planning would be an adequate study of the Proposed City Charter. Mr. Mader pointed out that If the Com ission tried to go Into too much detail In the area of what should be spelled out In the Charter, It might, at some time in the future, tle the hands of the Commission. It would be best for the Commission to use an overall approach rather than to try to state each Item In the Charter. Commissioner Perkins stated that It was his Impression that the Council wanted the Commission to review the zoning portion of the Proposed Charter and that he felt that they had expressed a desire to have the information available for them by the first Council meeting In June. Deputy Mayor Davey responded that the Council wanted a thorough Job to be done and therefore the time could be used as needed. There was no hard and fast deadline set by the Council. The City Manager pointed out that the City Attorney prepared a draft City Charter which was Included in the packets that were d9lfverdd'to'the Comm lssioners. This draft Charter was simply a starting point. The Commission, using this as a guide, could make any additions and deletions they felt necessary to clarify the zoning Issue. 4W Chairman McReynolds felt that since the Zoning Ordinance was revised Just one year ago In extensive detail, this should be looked at as It relates to the Zoning Ordinance. The Commission was in agreement that Item 4, should be concerned with. as presented in the Preliminary Draft submitted by MrFaisant, was the main Issue that the Commission Commissioner Perkins pointed out that Item 4 sets the minimum lot size that can be created and that only one dwelling may be placed on it. Item 4 also gives the Commission the flexibility to Increase the size required on a lot, bL that neither the Commission, nor the Council, has the authority to reduce the size requirement. He further pointed out that it would take a vote of the people and action by the State Legislature to make amendments or changes in the accepted Charter. He expressed some concern on how this portion of the City Charter would Interact with the Town's other Ordinances such as Building Site Approval. Commissioner Lachenbruch stated that the lot size for Building Site Approval Is set at the time that the Tentative Map Is accepted and that these lots which received approval prior to the time that the City Charter wcuid go Into effect and lots that have been established In the past would be excluded from the acreage requirement as proposed In the City Charter. Came issioner Lachenbruch felt that Section 9-5.103 of the Munidipal Code stating the purposes of the Zoning Ordinance is very crucial and should not be overlooked when reviewing Items for inclusion in the Proposed City Charter. He felt that this would carry great legal meaning. George Mader felt that the purpose should be clearly spelled out in the Charter and that perhaps the policy statement in the Zoning Ordinance would be an adequate description. After discussion by the Commission, they were in agreement that four Issues were pertinent and should be covered In the Charter: I. The lot size requirement. 2. The purpose of the requirements and the protection of the rural atmosphere. 3. The residential status and open space. 4. Control of the conditional use of lands. The Commission Instructed Staff to set the Proposed City Charter for a public hearing at the second meeting in June and further Instructed staff to review and make recommendations on this matter. After the recommendations are in order, Mr. Mader was Instructed to contact Chairman McReynolds to set a time for a Sub -Corm Ittee meeting. -2- Planning Commission Reel PC 16: Side I; Track 2; 257-999 Side 2; Track 2; 000-460 Chalrman McReynolds called the regular meeting of the Planning Commission of the Town of Los Altos Hills to order at 9:00 p.m. In the Council Chambers of Town Hail, 26379 Fremont Road, Los Altos Hills, California. A. ROLL CALL Present: Commissioners Lachenbruch, Perkins, Spencer, Weisbart and Chairman McReynolds Absent: Commissioners Magruder and Mueller Others Pnesent: Deputy Mayor, Mary Davey; City Manager, Bruce Lawson; Town Planner, George Mader; Town Engineer, Alec Russell B. CONSENT CALENDAR: I. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: May 9, 1973 Commissioner Perkins requested that Page 3, Paragraph 3 under Item 4, be revised to read: "Mr. Faisant advised Commissioner Perkins, during their discussion prior to March 20, 1973, that a General Law City could not use the Initiative Ordinance measure. Mr. Falsant said that their next choice would be to go Charter. MOTION, SECONDED AND CARRIED: Commissioner Spencer moved, seconded by Commissioner Weisbart and carried with a majority vote, with Chairman McReynolds abstaining, that the minutes of the regular meeting of May 9, 1973 be approved as amended. C. CONTINUING BUSINESS 1. PUBLIC HEARING ON APPLICATION FOR USE PERMIT: Mr. David BaIIUCCi. Request for a Use Permit for a non-profit recrea Flonal facility to be located on Moody Road. Mr. Mader reviewed the Staff Memorandum of May 22, 1973 with the Commission Illustrating particulars of the application as it relates to the map. Mr. Mader Informed the Commission that the requirements for approval of a Use Permit were four in number: I. The proposed use or facility Is properly located in relation to the community as a whole, land uses, and transportation and service ' facilities In the vicinity. ' �r .. ••v -3- 2. The site for the proposed use Is adequate In size and shape to accommodate the proposed use and all yards, open spaces, walls and fences, parking, loading, landscaping, and such other features as may be required by this chapter or, In the opinion of the EPC, will be needed to assure that the proposed use will be reasonably compatible with land uses normally permitted In the surrounding area. 3. The site for the proposed use will be served by streets and highways of adequate width and pavement to carry the quantity and kind of traffic generated by the proposed use. 4. The proposed use will not adversely affect the abutting property or the permitted use thereof. Mr. Mader further Informed the Commission that, in addition.to Vose re- quirements listed above, the Commission had the ability to place other conditions on the Use Permit which they feel are appropriate. Mr. Mader pointed out that Staff feels, If the Commission theses to approve the Use Permit for Mr. Belluccl, the following conditions be made; 1. The permit Is for a non-profit private tennis and swim club wish a maximum membership of 1,000 families. 2. The following facilities: The present club facilities Include: I. Three swimming pools 2. One wading pool 3. Locker rooms 4. Dressing roans 8 Showers 5. One staff housing unit. 6. Three rental units ( To be converted into si.,ff housing) 7. Owner's residence B. Two tennis courts 9. Playgrounds, recreational areas, gardens, lawns. Additional facilities planned: I. Twelve tennis courts 2. Championship tennis court 3. Building to house locker roans, lounge, and small pro shop 3. The championship tennis court shall be allowed to have a penaoe�t seating cap&city of 3,000 persons with room for an additional seating for 3,000. 4. The only permitted tennis tournament open to other than cluh members Is the annual Pacific Coast International Tournament to be organized and run by the Tennis Patrons of Northern California, a ncn-prorit corporation and such other smaller tournaments as may be approved in the future by the Environmental Planning Commission. 5. All provisions for lighting and sound amplifications shall be to the satisfaction of the Environmental Design Committee. -4- 6. The property Included (Assessor's parcels 351-03-002 and 182-24-004) shall be used exclusively for the permitted tennis and swim club 4, except that parking attendant to the use of the Tally Ho and Supper Club shall be permitted until the expiration of their permitted non- conforming status In 1976. 7. Prior to any additional construction, a detailed site plan shall be submitted showing all new construction, all existing construction, Including drives and parking areas, and all new landscaping. The plan shall be prepared by professional designers and shall be satisfactory to the Environmental Design Committee. The plan shall be substantially In conformance with the plot plan submitted with the conditional use permit application. S. The picnic grounds parcel (351-03-001) shall be included as a part of the use permit because It is Intended to supply parking necessary for the Pacific Coast International Tennis Tournament. 9. Mr. Belluccl should agree to phase out the nonconforming uses in 1976., with the racquet club property (Tally Ho and Supper Club) and the picnic grounds without legal contest unless such uses are at that time permitted by the zoning ordinance. Mr. Mader stated that since the time of the Staff Memo, a tenth condition had been recommended: 10. Any additional building should meet the approval of the Health L. Department and the Fire Department. Mr. Mader advised the Commission that the State requires that an EIR be made on any project that Is deemed to have significant effect on ervirorn.,I . The Planning Commission is the decision making body in the case of a cord'- tional use perm It and has to make this determ Inet ion. The Cs,=^ c,',­ -� n, accord Ing to the Ordinance, can be rev l awed upon call by the Coarra I, or `iho Ccunc)1 need not review It. The action can stop with the Planning Co.�Tlsslen. ! tl:e uwncll elects to review it, It would be set fa. i;e?ring :` which tuna the Council would review any EIR requirements. Mr. LaWsou Inio;r_ed the Commission that he was notified by telephone to:ey that thin District Cour! cf A.s.,eds vhheld the City's position in the 1976 deadline for -,h-.F:ng ou of no -conform. Ing uses and at that tiuoe Mr. Bai!ucci must eliminate Isis nonconforming uses. Mr. Lawson a's rovlewed the correspondence received with regard lo the Applica-lo:i for Use Permit of Mr. Beliuci. Commissioner Perkins spcaking on behalf of the Maps Comm,fttee, felt that Staff had prepared a cis=_r stateaent of the situation as it exists. Soeaking from the floor-, Mr. Belluccl opposed three c'., the recommendations of the staff . Tl -:o/ were recommendations 4,7 and 8. Mr. Belluccl felt that Ii' would be •!ua y dlfficuit to come before the Commission each time that tha tennis club chose to have inter -club tournaments. -5- Mr. Mader pointed out that the restrictions on Recommendation 4 were not aimed at Inter -club tournaments but was there for large tournaments such as the one being held by the Tennis Patrons of Northern California. He further stated that at the time of request for larger tournaments, Mr. Belluccl could request an approval for more than one year at a time. Mr. Bellucl further felt that It would be dlffcult to have the Environmental Design Committee apprcve all further construction as requested in Recommendation 7. Mr. Mader pointed out that Recommendation 7 was designed to make the approval of building an easy process for Mr. Bellucci. He pointed out that the Environmental Design Comittee would review such things as landscaping and design and that they were a Committee appointed by the City Council for this very purpose. It was Mr. Bellucci's desire that the picnic areas not be Included In the Application for Use Permit. He felt that If the tennis operations were a success, In 1976 this could be phased -out as a non -conforming use. Mr. Mader Informed the Commission that the Picnic grounds should be part of the Use Permit as there is Inadequate parking space available for the larger tournaments and this would be a way of assuring the Commission that this area will be used for parking. Mr. Mader stated that there were two ways to handle the problem of parking. (1) Parking could be made one of the conditions of the Use Permit and once parking is not available, the Ilse Permit would become Invalid or ; (2) to include the part of the lsrid that has the parking. Mr. Mader Informed Mr. Belluccl that If the second approach was used he would still be able to file a disclaimer that he reserves the right to contest the non -conforming status of the picnic grounds. Mr. Bel luccl stated that it was his feel Ing that traft is In the area �nalC be cut by one-third. He further stated that he would be committed contract to supply parking for the tennis club. '<'r from the floor, two neighbors, Mr. Bob Stu"- ^..d 'h-. i^_ J?r;,en, sltLo . they felt that the tennis club would .:e r.e goou use of the laid end thatrather have the tennis club than see the land subdivided. ..... Y: s. .o! 'h" exrr^=_sed ccri-crn on the Rants tit- toy that they hove :r: ^-r ass hud problems ... u... ,. �tq runc:i info the Adobe Cree>;, with flooding in the winter in :.+ ,.,: _ to and poi m ad out the past. r!e, r<ner. tho upper slopes ca.; .' !e covered In .i the rasp;'�r tens c -;h.o ;C;e Permit. The commission could state that no grad?cc w c•reio;.m;ent take plata during the life of the Use Permit. City Engineer P,1 <:- s=!i, stated that he felt that +he runoff would be ii,crr.-aeed wtih tau �', iaS _;a^.roto but t:lr` it b=. ,;i lght. The r,.pressod concern over the fact that the applicant for the Use Per..^'t wwas not really ckear.. They questioned whether the tennis club was 46, obligated to fulfill the conditions of the Use Permit as obtained by Mr. Belluccl. CPU Mr. Lawson pointed out that if any 'of the conditions of the Use Permit were not met by any person involved with it, the permit would automatically become void. Mr. Lawson further stated that the permit would also be void if Mr. Bellucci ever sold the land. The applicants may request the Commission to alter conditions of the Use Permit at any time. Mr. Lawson informed the Commission that they could protect the aspect of who the applicant is by having the Use Permit not take effect until such time as the Articles of Incorporation are filed with the State of California. Chairman McReynolds questioned the manner in which the Use Permit was re- quested. The map supplied was not to scale and therefore was inadquate. He further stated that the future of the area was not clear and was very indefinite and that the operating requirement of the Use Permit had not been defined. Chairman McReynolds further pointed out that no EIR study hasnc been submitted or discussed. MOTION SECONDED AND CARRIED: Commissioner Perkins moved, seconded by Neisbart and unanimously carried that the Use Permit for Mr. David Bellucci be continued to a special meeting to be held on May 30, at which time information be provided in the following areas: 1. Specific recommendations on the review of the permit at a time after the Use Permit has been issued. 2. Specific numbers of the proposed reduction of use and traffic. 4W 3. Clarification of the conditions of use. The commission further advised staff to report on the following items before the special meeting of May 30. 1. Open space and development impact. 2. Intensity of traffic. 3. Nature of use with regard to trails and flooeing. 4. Parking areas to be provided. 5. Light and noise problems in the area. 2. APPLICATION FOR PERMISSION TO CONSTRUCT A PUBLIC RIDING RING: Los Altos Hills Horseman's Association, Applicant. (P.O. Box 425, Los Altos, Calif.) To be located at Purissima next to the Little League Ball Park. Mr. Lawson illustrated the request of the Los Altos Hills Horseman's Association as it relates to the staff memorandum of May 17, 1973. Commissioner Lachenbruch questioned whether or not it would be a better idea to move the horse ring back more than the twenty (20) feet from Purrissima Road. With the ring in the proposed area, many large trees would have to be removed and the change in location would provide an area which could be (bw used in replanting. -7- The Town Engineer stated that there would be extensive grading necessary if the ring was moved further back. 04W. Speaking from the floor, Mr. Strobele informed the Commission that any grading would be done by a contractor. He further informed the Commission that the trees within the ring were being removed as a safety precaution so the children would not ride into them and hurt themselves. Speaking from the floor, Ralph Vetterlein, President of the Hills Little League, Inc. stated the the Little League was not opposed to the construction of a horse ring. They were concerned in areas of safety for children. Mr. Vetterlein felt that potential problems could be resolved through meetings with the Horseman's Association and the Little League. Speaking from the floor, Mrs. Ginzton, felt that the Commission should conside, the increased use of the Little League Park now from the amount of use tJ3t was originally anticipated. She ?ointed out that the park had several uses consiaered and because of the increased use in the baseball area, none of the other uses were able to be instituted. She felt that the same situation could be associated with the Riding Ring. Speaking from the floor, Mrs. Schick pointed out to the Commission that the Little League has offered the use of the field to anyone provided they maintain the field during its use. She pointed out the Little League has not excluded anyone. To date they have had no requests for use of the field. After discussion by the Commission, they felt that the Horseman's Association Q and the Little League should have a clear understanding of the uses of the property with regard to all safety matters. MOTION SECONDED AND CARRIED: Commissioner Lachenbruch moved seconded by Weisbart and unanimously carried that the request for permission to construct a public Riding Ring by the Los Altos Hills Horseman's Association be approved and forwarded to council along with recommendations of staff. 3. REQUEST FOR ACCEPTANCE OF TENTATIVE MAP: J. N. Pappas and Darwin Frazier, Applicants (644 Emerson Street, Palo Alto). P u F Tract, 6 lots, 13.7 acres (File No. 399-73) George Mader illustrated the request of Mr. Pappas Z Mr. Frazier. He informed the Commission that since this was just in for acceptance, no maps were provided at this time and the staff report had not been prepared but all items would be submitted when it comes to Commission for consideration. He suggested that the Commission in the motion for acceptance require that the preliminary soils and geology report be submitted at the next Commission Meeting that Mr. Pappas and Frazier will be heard. MOTION SECONDED AND CARRIED: Commissioner Spencer Moved, seconded by Commissioner Weisbart and carried with a majority vote with Cormissioner McReynolds voting no, that the application for acceptance for filing of Mr. Pappas and Mr. Frazier be approved and that a preliminary soils and geology report be provided at the time the maps are submitted for consideratic 40, 4. PUBLIC HEARING ON BUILDING SITE APPROVAL: Mr. Roscoe Hungett, Applicant (305 Spangoli Ct., Los Altos). Portion of Lots 43 and 44 of the Hale Ranch, 1.8 acres (File No. BSA, 100-73). - 8 - Mr. Mader Illustrated the request for Building Site Approval of 6 `, Mr. Hungett. He pointed out to the Commission that there Is a 30 foot easement and a proposed future street line of 10 feet. MOTION, SECONDED AND CARRIED: Moved by Commissioner Spencer, seconded by Commissioner Perkins and unanimously carried that the request for Building Site Approval for Mr. Hungett be approved with conditions set by staff In their May 16, 1973 memorandum with condition three to read as follows: 3. A minimum of an 80 foot setback from the south property line as shown on the applicant's plot plan received by Town Hall on April 23, 1973. MOTION, SECONDED AND CARRIED: Commissioner Lachenbruch moved, seconded by Commissioner Spencer and unanimously carried, that the Building Site Approval for Mr. Hungett will have no Environmental Impact and Instructed staff to file a negative finding with the County of Santa Clara. 5. PUBLIC HEARING ON BUILDING SITE APPROVAL: Mr. Corbus, Applicant (1401 Neto Street, Santa Clara, California) Book 9, page 43 of maps, 3.535 acres (File No. BSA 99-73) Mr. Mader Illustrated the request for Building Site Approval for Mr. Corbus pointing out the areas of staff recommendations. The Town Engineer felt that in addition to the 10 foot conservation easement a slope easement should be put In. He felt that since the slope easement could take as much as 604 of the conservation easement, the slope easement should be put in without encroaching the conservation easement. Mr. Mader stated that the slope easement should be made one of the conditions for acceptance. He further stated that the conservation easement would have to be at least IO feet. Commissioner Lachenbruch expressed concern over the steep dropoff at the quarry side and felt that a fence should be constructed. Speaking from the floor, Mr. M. R. Johnson stated that Mr. Corbus intends to construct a fence. MOTION, SECONDED AND APPROVED: Commissioner Perkins moved, seconded by Commissioner Lachenbruch and unanimously carried, that the Building Site Approval for Mr. Corbus be approved with a ninth and tenth condition to be added to the conditions of the staff memorandum. 9. Ten (10) feet shall be dedicated for widening of Page Mill Road. 10. Dedicate a twenty (20) foot trail easement outside the ten (10) foot widening along Page Mill Road. - 9 - MOTION, SECONDED AND APPROVED: Commissioner Lachenbruch moved, seconded by Commissioner Spencer and unanimously carried, that the Building Site Approval for Mr. Corbus will have no Environmental Impact and instructed staff to file a negative finding with the County of Santa Clara. D. NEW BUSINESS: I. Mrs. Laurence Valente approached the Commission requesting relief of one of the conditions imposed at the time of Building Site Approval. She stated that Interpretation of the condition was left to the Town Engineer and she was requesting a more lenient Interpretation from the Commission. The Commisslon Informed Mrs. Valente that, without maps, they would be unable to study the request and continued the matter to their Special Meeting of May 30, 1973, and requested, at that time, maps be provided. E. ADDITIONAL BUSINESS F. ADJOURNMENT: 1:20 A.li. MOVEQ SECONDED AND CARRIED: Commissioner Spencer moved, seconded by Commissioner Welsbart and unanimously carried the adjournment of the Planning Commission Meeting `, - 10 -