HomeMy WebLinkAbout02/27/1980 (2)PLANNING COMMISSION
Town of Los Altos Hills
27379 Fremont Road
Los Altos Hills, California
MINUTES OF A REGULAR MEETING
Wednesday, February 27, 1980
Reel 83, Side 2, Tr. 2, 876 to End; Reel 84, Side 1, Tr. 2, 001 to End; Side 2, Tr. 2,
001 to 065
Chairman VanTamelen called the meeting of the Planning Commission to order in the
Council Chambers of the Town Hall at 7:47 p.m.
ROLL CALL:
Present: Commissioners Carico, Lachenbruch, Stewart, Dochnahl, Kuranoff, vanTamelen
Absent: Commissioner Rydell
Also Present: City Planner/Engineer John Carlson, Assistant Planner Pat Webb,
Secretary Ethel Hopkins
CONSENT CALENDAR:
The Minutes of February 13 were removed from the Consent Calendar for separate con-
sideration.
MOTION SECONDED AND PASSED UNANIMOUSLY: On the motion of Commissioner Stewart seconded
by Commissioner Dochnahl the balance of the Consent Calendar was approved, namely the
followina:
1. Variance and Permit Commission Public Hearin gg for March 12: Lands of Cheng,
File #VAR. 2-80 (formerly File #VAR. 7067-80)
2. Planning Comission Public Hearings for March 12: Proposed Amendments to
Los Altos Hills Municipal Code Sections 9-4.703, 9-4.704 (Subsections (a)
and (b), 9-4.707, 9-4.710, 9-5.208(1), 9-5.209, 9-5.502, and 9-5.503 (Sub-
section (a).
The Minutes of February 13 were corrected as follows: (1) On page three, Condition 6.A
was amended to read: A Type IA native path shall be installed within the pedestrian
and equestrian easement on Lots 8 and 9. (2) Commissioner Lachenbruch requested that the
following remark be added to Condition 10.A: Commissioner Lachenbruch suggested that the
applicant might consider naming the street in honor of Mr. Molinari who lived on the
property for many years and who died just this month.
Carol Gottlieb, Pathway Committee, questioned whether the bridges referred to in Con-
dition 6.B s ou d be ui t at Town expense and whether two or three bridges would be
built.
Considerable discussion occurred on what had been recommended by the Planning Commission
with regard to the number of bridges to be built and who should pay for them. The con-
sensus was, however, that the minutes were correct as recorded. The Commission suggested
that both the Council representative and the City Engineer impress upon the City Council
that the two bridges recommended were important bridges and were to be installed at the
time of the subdivision improvements installation. The Commission advised Mrs. Gottlieb
to take her requests that the subdivider pay for and construct the bridges to the
City Council.
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES - February 27, 1930
Page two
CONSENT CALENDAR: (continued)
MOTION SECONDED AND APPROVED UNANIMOUSLY: On the motion by Commissioner Kuranoff,
seconded by Commissioner Dochnahl, the Minutes of February 13 were approved as amended.
Commissioner Kuranoff emphasized again the need for a transparency with pathway locations
and pathway connections clearly marked, noting that this would cut the amount of time
spent on pathway discussions considerably. Commissioner Lachenbruch added that the
subdivision should not come before the Planninq Commission until and unless pathway
recommendations were complete and a diagram showing these pathways and pathway connections
be available for the Commission. Discussion was concluded with the suggestion that the
subdivider be asked to provide a transparency for the path diagram.
Carol Gottlieb, Pathway_ Committee, discussed the problems encountered in completing the
master pat way map. She noted that she hoped to have the Master Path Plan completed
within the month and available for the Planning Commission.
COMMENTS FROM THE VARIANCE AND PERMIT COMMISSION: Commissioner Carico reported on the
recommendation of approval given for the Lan s of Clark, File #SA 1-80. She also noted
that future recommendations on recommendations of denial for variances that the City
Council had requested that the specific reasons for denial be stated in the motion, i.e.
the recommendation should cite any of the six reasons for the Granting of the variance
that the applicant cannot satisfy when making the recommendation.
COMMENTS FROM THE CITY COUNCIL: Commissioner Stewart had no comments from the City
4W Council meeting of February 20.
It was noted that in light of Commissioner Rydell's absence from the Planning Commission
meeting of that evening (February 27) the Plannina Commission representative to the
City Council meeting of March 5 would be Commissioner Stewart.
PUBLIC HEARINGS:
1. LANDS OF LYNCH, File #A 4438, Review of Landscape Plans for Caboose and Tennis Court,
Request for Approval:
As Mr. Carlson had no further comments on the above request, Mr. Lynch passed out revised
plans for landscaping and discussed these plans with the Commissioners.
Commissioner Lachenbruch noted the enormous amount of grading that would be done on the
site and the importance of screening all vertical structures from every vantage point
off the site. He suggested that the landscape architect find a way to run a few trees
up through the deck area so that close in screening would be provided.
Carl van eine, Landsca a Architect, 115 O'KeefeStreet Menlo Park, spoke for the plan
su mitted y r. ync an state tat e doubted that panting trees through the deck
area would screen anything.
Commissioner vanTamelen asked about the kind of material that would be used for the
retaining wall and that the applicant consider planting some evergreen trees between
the tennis court and the caboose.
MOTION SECONDED AND PASSED UNANIMOUSLY: It was moved by Commissioner Stewart and
seconded by Commissioner Carico to approve the landscaping plan submitted for the
Lands of Lynch dated "Received February 27, 1980."
At 8:45 p.m. a short break was taken, the meeting resuming at 8:58 p.m.
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES - February 27, 1980
Page three
L PUBLIC HEARINGS: (continued)
2. LANDS OF MANUEL, File #TM 2101-79, Elena Road, Paul Nowack and Associates,
Recommendation of Denial for Negative Declaration and Tentative Map (continued
from February 13th meeting):
Mr. Carlson reviewed past actions on the Lands of Manuel, including his original
recommendation for denial and reasons in his February 8th staff report, Planning
Commission discussion and request for additional material, and the material trans-
mitted with his supplemental memorandum of February 22. Mr. Carlson concluded his
discussion by citing Planning Commission action on the Lands of Hom Tentative Map,
noting that because of excessive noise from the freeway, the applicant was required
to delete one of the lots from the subdivision.
Commission discussion began with a clarification of the slope density yield of the
subdivision. Commissioner vanTamelen noted that an error had been made in calculating
the slope density yield: her calculations showed that 5.9 lots were allowed for the
subdivision rather than the 6.06 lots stated by the developer's engineer. She wanted
the record to reflect that the parcel was already at a saturation development stage.
Commissioner Stewart expressed concern for oak trees getting too much water with
their proximity to proposed septic tank drainfield areas. He cited trees on Lots 1
and 2 that would be vulnerable to destruction from excessive water. The City Engineer
concurred with Commissioner Stewart and noted that the intent of the open space areas
was to maintain the wooded and creek areas on the property. He noted that after one
lot was eliminated from the subdivision consideration would still have to be given to
preserving the area from damage to vegetation.
Other matters discussed were the effect of the drainfield on Lot 2 and questions on
the stability of the slope on that parcel, and the size of the bulb of the driveway.
Thereafter the meeting was opened to the public discussion.
Paul Nowack, En ineer, 127 State Street, Los Altos, speaking for Mr. Burdick the
eve oper of t e su iv"T , or
t e reasons aiven in the staff report for
recommending denial of the tentative map and cited reasons why the subdivision should
not be denied. Specifically, he noted that there were almost six lots allowable to
the subdivision, but the subdivider was requesting five, that leachfields could be re-
located away from oak trees, noted that mitigating measures had been provided to provide
for sound buffering, discussed the location of the driveway and stated that Fire Depart-
ment requirements for that roadway could be met without the large bulb area at the end,
noted that houses had not been planned along the high sound problem areas of the parcel,
and finally, that the proposed subdivision did not violate the General Plan.
Further discussion by Cornissioners and staff centered on the fact much of the area
for the subdivision was designated as "Open Space Conservation Area" (page 52 of the
General Plan) and that the area was to be preserved in its natural state, the location
of the road in the conservation easement area and too near to adjacent developed propeties,
geological and slope stability problems, the problems of sound and drainage, whether the
subdivision should be limited to four lots, and the size of houses on the subdivision
if it were allowed to have five lots. Commissioner Lachenbruch asked that the Town
Geologist certify that he is satisfied with Lot 2 as shown, as it appeared from
his letter of December 4,1979 that he was not.
Norman Burdick, Develo er, 329 South San Antonio Road, Los Altos, said he preferred
To -150 0 omes to it t e site an tat disturbed the 11idas little as possible. He state
that he would agree to limit the size of the houses built in the subdivision to 3,500
square feet.
PLANNING COMPASSION MINUTES - February 27, 1980
Page four
PUBLIC HEARINGS: (continued)
MANUEL, File NTM 2101-79: (continued)
MOTION SECONDED AND PASSED UNANIMOUSLY: It was moved by Commissioner Carico and
seconded by Commissioner Lachenbruch to recommend denial without prejudice for the
Lands of Manuel, File HTM 2101-79, for the reasons outlined in the City Engineer's
staff report dated February 8, 1980.
The Commissioners then discussed guidelines for a resubmitted map. No clear cut
decision was made on whether there should be four lots or five lots in the subdivision.
Instead, suggestions were made for redesigning the map to accommodate: 1) the road
outside the swale area; 2) a limitation to the size of the houses on the subdivision;
i.e., that it was preferable to have five smaller houses rather than four gargantuan
dwellings on a four lot subdivision; 3) a relocation of the roadway; 4) sound mitigation
for the noise problem; and 5) access off Elena Road for driveways for Lots 2 and 3.
(amended by PC on 3/12)
Revised plans would be sent out to all agencies and would be re -considered at a meeting
of the Subdivision Committee. All Commissioners and neighbors would be notified of this
meeting. Commissioner Lachenbruch requested that the Town Geologist give a final
recommendation on the resubmitted plans for the subdivision.
3. PRE -ZONING UNINCORPORATED AREAS, Request for Recommendation of Approval of Pre -
Zoning:
Mr. Carlson discussed
4,r ary 22. Additionally
area is less than one
may be annexed without
annexation must occur
later annexed because
request for pre -zoning
the above request as detailed in his staff report dated Febru-
he noted that areas may be pre -zoned and annexed in two ways: 1) if tl
hundred acres and surrounded by three-fourths of the Town the area
a vote of the gentle; 2) if the area is more than one hundred acres
at the vote of the residents of the area. Areas are pre -zoned and
they are within the Town's sphere of influence. He noted that the
had been initiated at the City Council level.
Commissioners discussed with Mr. Carlson the terms under which pre -zoning or annexation
would be applied; i.e., that all pre-existing conditions on properties must be accepted
as they were at the time of pre -zoning or annexation, and that Town ordinances would
be applied as new applications for building or conditional uses or variances are applied
for. Commissioner Lachenbruch requested a copy of the County slope density ordinances
and reasons why the pre -zoning request should be approved. Mr. Carlson stated that
pre -zoning did not necessitate annexation, but that there were three phases to annexation,
namely, 1) to establish a sphere of influence; 2) to pre -zone the area; and 3) annexation.
Commissioners cited the need to clarify how pre-existing situations would be handled
after pre -zoning or annexation, and how parcels such as one-fourth acre sites would be
handled if annexed. Thereafter, the hearing was opened to the public comment.
Mar o C. Ploore, 11170 Mora Drive, objected to being pre -zoned or annexed without being
consu ted ,n t e matter, questioned the amount of time given with the notification,
questioned how they might be adversely affected by the pre -zoning action, and spoke
for the benefit of being able to make a choice.
Danielle Reneau, 13149 Byyrd Lane, Los Altos Hills, asked about the benefits of in-
corporating these a 5 t e Town
Murielle Schmidt Terry Way off Mora Drive, Los Altos, stated she was active in the
property owners' association and asked who had decided what would be annexed and how.
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES - February 27, 1980
` Page five
�✓ PUBLIC HEARINGS: (continued)
3. PRE -ZONING UNINCORPORATED AREAS: (continued)
John Hu i"
24790 No
rthcrest Lane, expressed concern on why Los Altos Hills needed
their area since t ey id not feel they needed the Town. He stated that notification
was short and that direct notification to people involved was lacking. He spoke against
the pre -zoning and eventual annexation.
Assistant Planner Pat Webb gave historical background on annexation with the Santa Clara
County area.
Wayne Kelley, 25275 La Loma Drive, asked about the financial impact of the pre -zoning
action. He sp6k( agaTnst t>le"trivial" reasons given for the pre -zoning action.
Jitze Couperus, 13680 Page Mill Road, noted that the annexation action was "land -
grab ing".
Albert Horley, 27222 Black Mountain Road, spoke against annexing land to the Town
wit out a vote of t e peop a involved.
Norman French, 24793 Northcrest Lane, questioned how the area he lived in could be an
"island" and note tat is area already complied with Town standards as far as the
sphere of influence goes.
Mrs. Henr Co shall, 24886 Olive Tree Lane, asked about the development of the Semas
property an a so w y t R area nee a pre -zoning or annexation since their area was
surrounded by County land.
Carol Gottlieb, Pathwa Conmittee, noted that with the closing of schools and the
se ng of sites, sc oo districts in vital need of money can obtain funds.
Wayne Kelley, asked that if the City Attorney and City Manager are present for a
continued meeting on the matter of pre -zoning and annexation, that they provide infor-
mation on the financial impact and involvement relating to these matters.
The public hearing was closed, and Commissioners discussed some of the possible reasons
for the pre -zoning. They were: to bring the area into the Town's sphere of influence
and to prevent other, less desirable development to occur there by doing so; to broaden
the Town's tax base; and to prevent these areas being annexed by other Towns. As
Commissioners felt they were unable to make a decision without more information, the
matter was continued until the next meeting. Specific information requested by the
Commission was: 1)Whatever information could be provided on the impact on finances
and services that would result from pre -zoning or annexing; 2) reasons that the City
Council requested the pre -zoning; 3) copies of the Morga Act; and 4) more information
on how the request forpre-zoningoriginated.
MOTION SECONDED AND PASSED UNANIMOUSLY: On the motion of Commissioner Stewart,
seconded by Commissioner Lachenbruch, the Pre -Zoning of Unincorporated Areas public
hearing was continued to the meeting of March 12 where it would be the first item
of business on the agenda. The City Manager and the City Attorney were requested
to be present for this discussion to answer pertinent questions.
OLD BUSINESS:
There was no old business to discuss, but on the motion of Commissioner Dochnahl,
passed by consensus, the meeting of the Planning Commission was extended beyond 11:30 p.m.
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES - February 27, 1980
Page six
NEW BUSINESS:
1. Presentation from the Floor:
Pau eneau, Yr ane, spoke on behalf of neighbors who wanted to preserve
e rura c arac er of Los Altos Hills. He commended the ordinances to be discussed
at the March meeting and discussed other ordinances that the Planning Commission might
consider. Subjects for future ordinances mentioned were the preservation of the ridge
line, the problem of infilling, thecreation of an architectural review board
similar to those in Woodside and Portola Valley, and the tightening of controls on
secondary dwellings. He requested that these items be included on the agenda the
next time the Commission discusses the tightening of Town ordinances and promised
to submit ordinances to show what their committee had in mind.
Albert Horley, stated that he had come in support of Paul Reneau's proposals and
suggested that the pre -zoning issue be clarified so as to avoid misunderstandings,
and suggested also that residents were very concerned with the development of the
Palo Alto School property.
Commissioner Carico asked for more information on the group supporting Mr. Reneau
and commended the group's efforts to preserve the rural integrity of the Town.
The Commission agreed to consider Mr. Reneau's suggestions and asked that he submit
proposals for Commission review and possible drafting of ordinances.
2. Limitation on the Size of Housing (re Lands of Manuel, File #TM 2101-79):
The was raised y t e Commission on the legality of limiting the floor area
of a dwelling, i.e., could the Planning Commission impose this as a condition on
C the above Tentative Map and make it legally binding on the subdivider? Mr. Carlson
\r' pointed out that a legal ruling was needed on this matter to determine if an agreement
between the Town and the Subdivider could be placed along with the deed of the property
in order to limit the size of the houses that might be built. Commissioner Lachenbruch
requested that a ruling be obtained.
3. Meetin s on Fair Housin and "Liv in 4lithin Our Limits": A short discussion occurred
on w o might attend t ese meetings; no decisions were made, however.
4. Drainage: Discussion on what needed to be done on the drainage problem resulted
in a decision that a committee composed of Commissioner Lachenbruch, Commissioner van
Tamelen, Bill Cotton, Councilman Perkins and John Carlson meet and first define the
problem, then decide on ways to tackle it would be the best way to attack the Town's
drainage problem.
5. ArastraderoBike Path Memorandum dated Feb l 15, 1980: Commissioner Stewart
requested that t e Planning Commission review t e plans and agreement referred to in
the subject memo. Mr. Carlson promised that this information would be made available
as soon as it is received.
ADJOURNMENT:
There being no further new or old business, the meeting was adjourned by Chairman
vanTamelen at 12:20 a.m.
Respectfully submitted,
�+ Ethel Hopkins
Secretary