Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout09/10/1980 (2)PLANNING COMMISSION Town of Los Altos Hills 26379 Fremont Road Los Altos Hills, California MINUTES OF A REGULAR MEETING Wednesday, September 10, 1980 Reel 88, Side I, It. II, 354 - End; Side II, Tr. II, 000 - The meeting of the Planning Commission was called to order by Chairman vanTamelen at 7:45 p.m. in the Council Chambers of the Town Hall, ROLL CALL: Present: Commissioners Carico, Dochnahl, Kuranoff, Lachenbruch, Stewart, Chairman vanTamelen Absent: None Also Present: City Engineer/Planner John A. Carlson, Assistant Planner Pat Webb, Secretary Leslie Tenfold CONSENT CALENDAR: The following items were removed from the Consent Calendar: 1) Minutes of August 27, 1980 The minutes of August 27, 1980 were amended as follows: tv 1) On page three, fifth paragraph, second sentence, Commissioner Lachenbruch re- quested this to be revised to read as follows: ...across the southerly three - hundred feet (300') of the property..." MOTION SECONDED AND PASSED BY CONSENSUS: It was moved by Commissioner Carico and passed by consensus to approved the August 27, 1980 minutes as amended. APPROVED BY CONSENSUS: The balance of the Consent Calendar was approved by consensus. REPORT FROM THE VARIANCE AND PERMIT COMMISSION MEETING OF SEPTEMBER 10, 1980: Commissioner Carico reported that the Variance and Permit Commission recommended approval of an encroachment into the side yard and front yard building setback for the Lands of Strayer, File VARA 6-80. The variance was passed unanimously by members present. REPORT FROM CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF SEPTEMBER 3 1980: Commissioner Carico reported that the City Council approved the Tentative Map for the Lands of Bellucci, File TMII 2104-79, with some changes to the Conditions of Approval. She stated that the Council did address the total property owned by Mr. Bellucci. Next representative to the City Council meeting of September 17, 1980 will be Commissioner Carico. PUBLIC HEARINGS: L I. LANDS OF LYNCH, File IIA 4438 & IIA 4485, 25701 Lomita Linda Court, Referral to the Planning Commission from the City Council, petition from neighbors for removal of the caboose. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES OF SEPTEMBER 10, 1980 PAGE TWO PUBLIC HEARINGS: (continued) Mr. Carlson reported that the City Council referred the Lands of Lynch to the Planning Commission for purpose of: 1)addressing charges in the letter from Mr. 6 Mrs. Cass, dated August 19, 1980 as they relate to the Municipal Code; 2)considering Code requirements as they relate to mobil homes and boats; and 3)determine if proper notification was given to residents. Mr. Carlson referred to his staff report dated September 4, 1980 indicating a chronology of the Site Development Permit issued for the caboose. He also stated that any further matter dealing with the legality of the caboose should be handled by the residents and Mr. Lynch. A sketch of the Landscape Plan, dated February 5, 1980 for the caboose and tennis court was provided for view by the public and Planning Commission. Commissioner Lachenbruch was concerned with the fact that the landscape plans do not show sufficient landscaping being provided for screening of the caboose or tennis court and asked that the conditions for the tennis court and minutes of February 27, 1980 be pre- sented. The minutes of February 27, 1980 indicate that the Landscape plan dated, "Received February 27, 1980" was approved by the Planning Commission. Commissioner Carico stated that she spoke with Mr. Lynch, and that he would be landscaping around the caboose and down the stairway. The hearing was then opened for public discussion: Mr. James Reynolds, 23750 Ravensbury, addressed the letter from September 4, 1980 from the committee to remove the caboose and the City Attorney's memorandum of Sentember 8, 1980. He questioned the methods Mr. Lynch used to transport the caboose onto his property and if a permit was issued. He stated that he did not feel that the Planning Commission fol- lowed the correct rules and procedures, that are indicated in the Municipal Code. Stating further that the Town needed guidelines for residents to follow, for what type of struc- tures can be placed on their property. Commissioners noted that based on past interpretations of the Code, the Planning Commission felt that this structure was conforming with the Municipal Code. It was also noted that at the time of Site Development for both the caboose and tennis court there were no objections from adjacent neighbors. Mrs. Carico stated that she spoke with three (3) adjacent neighbors of Mr. Lynch and that they did not object to the caboose. Mr. Don Beck, 12150 Winton Way, concurred with Mr. Reynolds and recommended that the Town obtain outside council for another opinion. Mr. Ed Barnes, 23750 Ravensbury, stated the caboose is a vehicle and therefore an illegal structure. He felt that the Planning Commission did not follow proper procedures and that the City Council should have been the final approving body. He objected to the appearance of the caboose and since the caboose is in plain view of everyone, recommended removal of the caboose immediately. Mr. Malcolm Williams, 23707 Ravensbury, wants to be sure that the landscaping will be maintained by Mr. Lynch, and that possibly a performance bond be required by the Town to insure the screening of the caboose. Mr. Michael Rappaport, 10240 W. Loyola Drive, concerned with the amount of screening that will be installed for the caboose and tennis court. Commissioner Carico said that Mr. Lynch would plant around the caboose, and that the landscape plans do specify the tree types and size. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES OF SEPTEMBER 10, 1980 PACE THREE Commission questioned the public that if the caboose were to be painted another color and if sufficient landscape screening was installed would the caboose be as offensive? Mr. Reynolds, stated that possibly if the caboose were painted another color and there was adequate screening, it would not be as offensive to the public. Mr. Richard Johnson, 11564 Arroyo Oaks, suggested that the Planning Commission try to enforce stricter landscaping that would enhance the area and possibly painting the caboose a more natural color to blend into the hillside. Mrs. Artemas Ginzton, Chairman of Environmental Design Committee, suggested that if the owner were willing to do so, buy large full grown trees instead of landscaping with fif- teen (15) gallon trees,(since they take so long to develop), and paint the caboose an authentic caboose color. Commissioner Lachenbruch stated that the only landscape requirement imposed on Mr. Lynch at the time of the caboose application was a fifteen (15) gallon tree. The Planning Com- mission knew a tennis court application was forthcoming and that further landscaping would be required, and would require a landscape plan to be presented by an Architect. Mrs. Barbara Jones, 25005 is Loma, objected to the placement of the caboose, and has sent out petitions and made posters against it. Mr. Anthony Richardson, 23551 Camino Hermoso, suggested that an effort be made to paint the caboose another color, and require Mr. Lynch to place a trellis around the caboose to help mitigate the caboose from the roadway. Mr. Charles Pack, 25303 La Loma Drive, in keeping the Town rural he did not feel that the caboose was in harmony with the rest of the Town. Concerned that the fifteen (15) gallon trees would not help screen the caboose. Commissioner Kuranoff felt that Mrs. Ginzton's suggestion of bringing in full grown trees would help to mitigate the structure and suggested that possibly a committee could meet with Mr. Lynch to discuss these aspects. MOTION SECONDED AND PASSED UNANIMOUSLY: It was moved by Commissioner Kuranoff and seconded by Commissioner Rydell to appoint a committee to meet with Mr. Lynch on mitigating measures for the caboose, the following items will be discussed: 1) paint the caboose a darker color, either grey or dark brown until fully screened; 2) place large boxed trees and trellis on redwood deck immediately; 3) plant full grown trees at each end of the caboose for immediate screening; 4) consider use of an opaque fence fabric on the east side of tennis court; 5) stage trees, so that fast growing trees are placed in critical locations; 6) Ask Mr. Lynch for his suggestions; 7) Request no parking along Ravensbury. Committee representatives will be Commissioner Rydell and Commission Carico, Commissioner Rydell will be Chairman. After the Committee meets with Mr. Lynch, they are to report back to the Planning Commission at their October 8, 1980 meeting. MOTION SECONDED AND PASEED UNANIMOUSLY: It was moved by Commissioner Rydell and seconded by Commissioner Kuranoff to have staff prepare a report to the City Council for their meeting of September 17, 1980, to make them aware of the legal concerns that the public f have. MOTION SECONDED AND PASSED UNANIMOUSLY: It was moved by Commissioner Lachenbruch and seconded by Commissioner Stewart that prior to Final Inspection of the caboose and landscap- ing this item will be returned to the Planning Commission for review of the mitigation PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES OF SEPTEMBER 10, 1980 PAGE FOUR measures as stated, and that 1) staff be instructed to take special notice that no 220 f� electrical service be supplied to the structure, 2) possible legal provisions that might prohibit parking on Ravensbury on Mr. Lynch's property be implemented, and 3) that the landscape plan be fully implemented. After these items have been accomplished this matter will return to the full Planning Commission for their review. OLD BUSINESS: 1) Proposed Master Pathway Element: Mrs. Ginzton reviewed the past history of the pathways and pathway committee. She noted that a Master Pathway Element had once been adopted by the City Council on June 20, 1966, and that the Planning Commission would not be adopting a new Master Pathway Element but only revising it. After reviewing the Element and plans, the Commissioners felt that it still needed clarification. Commissioner Rydell was concerned that the bikeway plan is not sufficient in showing the type of path for specific roads, possibly a more detailed plan is needed prior to acceptance. Commissioner Kuranoff said that he would not be able to approve either the Element or plans, because he felt that some of the pathways were invading the privacy of residents. Commissioner Lachenbruch felt that the Commission needed to take into consideration safety, privacy and convenience, before granting the placement of a pathway. If a pathway is not required for safety, privacy should not be violated for convenience of the path user. It was decided by the Planning Commission to give some input of their changes prior to the next Planning Commission meeting, so that the Element can be re -typed with those changes. This item will be presented at the next Planning Commission meeting for review in detail. ADJOURNMENT: There being no further new or old business, the meeting was adjourned by Chairman vanTamelen at 12:30 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Leslie Penfold Engineering/Planning Secretary