Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout01/10/1990PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING TOWN OF LOS ALTOS HILLS 26379 FREMONT ROAD LOS ALTOS HILLS, CALIFORNIA WEDNESDAY, JANUARY 10, 1990 Planning Commission Approved 2/14/90 cc: Reel #1-90 1. ROLL CALL AND PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE Present: Chairman Emling, Commissioners Comiso, Jones, Stutz, Noel and Pahl. Absent: Commissioner CariCo. Staff: Bill Ekern, Director of Public Works. 2. CONSENT CALENDAR 2.1 Approval of the Minutes of December 13, 1989. Commissioner Jones removed the minutes of the December 13, 1989 meeting from the Consent Calendar. He wished to clarify the minutes regarding LANDS OF RAMAN. Commissioner Pahl asked that the following paragraph replace the existing last paragraph: "The commissioners discussed liability for dedicated pathways. A discussion ensued between Staff and Commissioner Pahl as to whether homeowners were also potentially liable for injuries which might occur on pathways. Commissioner Pahl explained it is possible for a property owner providing the easement to be indemnified by the Town, but left it to the Town Attorney for his opinion as to the best way to accomplish that fact." Commissioner Comiso requested that the following sentence under LANDS OF ASHMAN be deleted: "She also noted that the Ashman's had cut the numbers in half as the Planning Commission had directed at the last meeting." MOTION SECONDED AND PASSED: Moved by Jones, seconded by Stutz, and passed by consensus to approve the minutes of December 13, 1989 as amended. 3. REPORT FROM THE CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF JANUARY 3, 1990 Commissioner Pahl reported that the City Council had approved LANDS OF ASHMAN, a request for a variance to the maximum floor area allowed by the PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES P.C. Approved 2/14/90 %, January 10, 1990 Page 2 Zoning Code for an addition to a residence. He noted that, like the Planning Commissioners, the Councilmembers experienced difficulty making the necessary finding. Based upon their discussion, they were able to make the finding and grant the variance. He further noted that he was pleased with the City Council's decision as he thought that everyone at the Planning Commission level had wanted to make the finding, but it was difficult to do so. 4. REPORT FROM THE SITE DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE MEETING OF NOVEMBER 21, 1989 Commissioner Comiso reported on the four properties reviewed. 1.) Chen, Landscape plan was approved, conditioned with a $1500 landscaping bond. 2.) Owens, Landscape plan, also approved, conditioned with a $1500 bond. 3.) Nakao, New residence, approved with no major problems, the owner was conditioned to return with a landscaping plan. 4.) Boldrey, Addition, no significant problems and the project was approved. E 5. PRESENTATIONS FROM THE FLOOR There were no presentations from the floor. 6. PUBLIC HEARINGS 6.1 LANDS OF PAULNOCK,13151 Cumbra Vista Court, A request for a variance to the fence height/setback requirements of the Code to allow a six foot chainlink fence on property lines adjacent to rights-of-way. Bill Ekern introduced this request for a variance for encroachment of the fence on the property line. He referred to Staff's recommendation for approval of the variance as conditioned along Elena Road and LaBarranca Road, notably with removal of the portion on Cumbra Vista Court. Commissioner Pahl questioned Staff regarding measures to ensure the fence remains painted, rather than becoming mottled with the underlying silver. Staff noted maintenance of the paint or adequate mitigation could be a condition of approval. Commissioner Stutz referred to Staff Condition #3 and suggested conditioning a two-year check to ensure the right-of-way side of the fence was planted. She suggested additions be made to the planting plan for outside the fence. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES P.C. Approved 2/14/90 January 10, 1990 Page 3 Planning Commission Disclosures Chairman Emling had no contact with the applicant and visited the site. Commissioner Pahl noted he had been by the property. Commissioners Noel and Stutz had driven by all three sides of the property. Commissioner Jones drove by the property two times. Commissioner Comiso has driven by all three sides several times. The Public Hearing was opened. Kathy Perga, 12100 Dawn Lane expressed concern that Planning Commission approval of this variance would be precedent setting and noted that more plantings outside the fence would obstruct riding. Dot Schreiner, 14301 Saddle Mountain Drive noted that the pathways on Elena and LaBarranca are in excellent condition. If more plantings are required to mitigate the fence it will be necessary to ensure that they don't obstruct the pathway. As one t example, Cleaners should not be planted as Oleanders would be too obstructive. �r Carl Nash, 13070 Cumbra Vista Court noted that the fence was out of character for the area but that painting it black would help make it less noticeable. He expressed his doubt that plantings would grow well in the poor soil on the outside of the fence. Mr. Nash voiced his support of the property owner's right to protect his property. Russell Paulnock, 13151 Cumbra Vista Court presented his reasons for retaining the fence, referring to his letter to Staff dated December 11, 1989. He explained that he and his wife are avid gardeners and their property has sustained a great deal of damage from deer. He noted that the staff report was misleading as there is only ten feet of fence along Cumbra Vista Court. Mr. Paulnock agreed with the findings of the staff report, but did not accept the conditions. He noted the plantings were already beginning to grow through the fence and explained that setting the fence back further in the yard would entail cutting down well established trees and shrubs, or unrealistic zig-zagging of the fence. He also noted his objection to maintaining plants on the Town right-of-way. Mr. Paulnock supplied photographs of existing fences on Altamont for the Planning Commission to view. Commissioner Pahl noted residents' concerns with chain-link fencing and questioned Mr. Paulnock regarding plantings in the hard soil outside the fence, L asking Mr. Paulnock for his suggestions on the most appropriate mitigating plantings and for his reaction to conditions that the fence not be visible by a certain date. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES P.C. Approved 2/14/90 �W January 10, 1990 Page 4 Mr. Paulnock responded that he is categorically opposed to bonds and would need to seek legal advice relative to agreeing to guarantee that the fence was mitigated. Commissioner Stutz questioned Mr. Paulnock regarding the type of fence the chain- link fence replaced, and whether he had considered any other type of fencing, specifically wood post and rail fencing. Chairman Emling questioned Mr. Paulnock as to why he didn't apply for a permit for the fence. Mr. Paulnock responded that he understood the contractor would make the application. He also noted that a number of people had complimented him on the new fence. The Public Hearing was closed. Commissioner Jones explained that a substantial number of properties in Los Altos H lls are surrounded on three side by streets, and he consequently had trouble considering this is an unusual condition of the property. He also noted that the C fence was marginally in his vision, looking out onto Elena from Cumbra Vista and �r LaBarranca, and that a vine covered fence might pose a safety problem. He noted that plantings on the inside of the fence would grow through and help to mitigate the fence. Chairman Emling noted that he intended to vote to deny the request, citing the series of issues on types of fencing Town residents have expressed concern with and his concern over the applicant's building without a permit. MOTION SECONDED AND FAILED: Motion by Pahl, seconded by Comiso to adopt Staff Recommended Findings for the variance 1 through 4 and to therefore grant the variance for the fence subject to the proposed Conditions 1 through 3; and that the applicant be allowed to utilize his expertise to choose appropriate foilage that best serves his property; and that a bond be taken out to ensure that the fence is still painted black or that the shrubs and foliage in the area adequately mitigate the view of the fence. AYES: Commissioners Comiso and Pahl NOES: Chairman Emling and Commissioners Jones, Noel, and Stutz ABSENT: Commissioner Carico Commissioner Comiso questioned Mr. Paulnock relative to his contract with Sears and their responsiblity in applying for the necessary permits. Commissioner Jones suggested granting the variance for LaBarranca, but not Elena PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES P.C. Approved 2/14/90 January 10, 1990 Page 5 with the previously defined conditions. However, Commissioner Pahl noted that Mr. Paulnock's main motivation for building the fence was keeping the deer off his property, and that a fence along one side of the property would not be adequate for this purpose. MOTION FAILED DUE TO LACK OF A SECOND: Motion by Jones to approve the variance for LaBarranca Road only. Chairman Emling explained that the applicant had the right to appeal the decision of the Planning Commission to the City Council within 10 days. 7. NEW BUSINESS There was no new business. 8. OLD BUSINESS 8.1 Quarry Hills: Historical preterit retrospective review of times gone by in the past. Bill Ekern introduced this item as an opportunity for the commissioners to review the history of the proposed Quarry Hills Subdivision and discuss issues relative to Planning Commission recommendations to the City Council. The commissioners discussed the time frame of the tentative map proposal, the fencing condition and concerns with prohibiting animal movement up and down stream, the Reclamation Plan hearing set for January 17, 1990, defining the area of annexation, and the effects of Measure B. John Vidovich expressed his readiness to move ahead with the application as quickly as possible, and encouraged the Planning Commission's recommendations to the City Council. No recommendations were made, nor action taken. 9. ADJOURNMENT Commissioner Comiso questioned Staff regarding voting for Planning Commission Site Development as to whether approval/denial was based on a majority or consensus vote. Staff responded that this would be based on a majority vote. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES P.C. Approved 2/14/90 January 10, 1990 Page 6 MOTION SECONDED AND PASSED: Motion by Noel, seconded by Jones and passed unanimously to adjourn at 9:00 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Laura Johnson Planning Secretary