Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout03/14/1990DRAFT PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING TOWN OF LOS ALTOS HILLS 26379 FREMONT ROAD LOS ALTOS HILLS, CALIFORNIA WEDNESDAY, MARCH 14TH, 1990 Draft cc: Reel #5-90 1. ROLL CALL AND PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE Present: Vice Chairman Jones and Commissioners Comiso, Carico, Noel, Pahl, Stutz. Absent: Chairman Emling Staff: Bill Ekern, Director of Public Works; Ann Jamison, Planning Director. 2. CONSENT CALENDAR 2.1 Approval of the Minutes of February 28th, 1990. Commissioner Stutz removed the Minutes of February 28th, 1990 from the Consent Calandar to clarify on page 10 under LANDS OF QUARRY HILLS that she had seen the flags for the sanitary sewer in April of 1989. She also wished to clarify on page 11 under 7.1 that she had visited the site and by admission, the other commissioners hadn't visited the site and should not have been voting. She also wished to include in her statement on page 13 that she had asked that the walkway on the corner of Purissima and Concepcion be inspected as it was adjacent to the street and was conditioned to be adjacent to the property line. PASSED BY CONSENSUS: Passed by consensus to approve the minutes of February 28th, 1990. MOTION SECONDED AND PASSED: Motion by Comiso, seconded by Noel and passed by consensus to continue Item 6.2 LANDS OF CIRCLE at the applicant's request to the Planning Commission meeting of March 28,1990. 3. REPORT FROM THE CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF MARCH 7TH, 1990 Commissioner Carico reported on the City Council meeting of March 7th, 1990. She noted that a request by Commissioners Comiso and Pahl to take a private plane to the Planning Commissioners Conference in San Diego was approved. She also noted that PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Draft March 14th, 1990 Page 2 Councilmember van Tamelen removed LANDS OF BROWN from the consent calendar as she did not believe the commissioners had made the findings for a variance. There were also concerns about liability and the issues of safety and liability regarding delays to repairs. The motion to appeal the Planning Commission approval of the variance failed in a 2 - 2 vote, with one councilmember abstaining. Commissioner Carico noted the Council discussed adoption of an ordinance protecting Oak trees, heritage trees, and possibly other trees. She outlined the report from William Cotton regarding the results of the October 17, 1989 earthquake. She also reported on the City Council's review of the LANDS OF QUARRY FULLS, noting that the Council had approved the applicant's request for a 90 day extension, and that the applicant had asked that the application not return to the Planning Commission. The Council was concerned that the Commission had not made recommendations regarding issues such as annexation, not involving the geotechnical concerns. Commissioner Carico noted that the City Council had set Monday, April 30th at 5:30 p.m. for the next Joint City Council - Planning Commission meeting. Commissioner Pahl noted he is unable to attend the meeting on that date. 4. REPORT FROM THE SITE DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE MEETINGS OF MARCH 6TH AND MARCH 13TH March 6th: Ann Jamison reported that one application was reviewed and approved: Zunino - landscaping, Conditions of approval included mitigation of one corner of the house, a requirement that an arborist separate existing small Oaks from existing fencing, and a requirement that erosion control be installed on the slopes. March 13th: Ann Jamison reported that two applictions were reviewed and approved: Gieseler - landscaping, Conditions included buffering views from Via Corita; Scharfetter - landscaping, Staff questioned whether the proposed landscaping would provide adquate mitigation, and per a landscape architect there was a possible problem with getting water to the Oaks and other landscaping. Consequently, an additional year was added to the landscaping bond which provided for Staff review of the plantings in three years time. 5. PRESENTATIONS FROM THE FLOOR There were no presentations from the floor. 6. PUBLIC HEARINGS Vice Chair Jones referred to the recent Planning Commission action of adopting Roberts' Rules of Order, noting that according to these rules of order, the Chair position abstains from voting or debate unless this action will change the outcome. Vice Chair Jones stated he would abstain from voting and debate unless his vote would change the outcome. 4aw 6.1 LANDS OF PACKARD/LANG, 26580 and 26790 Taaffe Road, A request for a variance to the fence height/setback requirements of the Zoning Code. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Draft Mardi 14th, 1990 �W Page 3 Ann Jamison introduced this item, referring to the Staff report, and noting the Mr. Packard had received variances in the past for similar fences on Altamont Road. Planning Commission Disclosures Commissioner Carico had seen the property but not visited the site recently. Commissioner Comiso had seen the site and had nothing further to disclose. Commissioner Stutz had seen the site and been on the property three year ago. Commissioner Noel visited the property. Commissioner Pahl visited the property. Vice Chair Jones drove by the property. The Public Hearing was opened. Pat Webb, Brian Kangas Foulk, representing the applicants, outlined the Mr. Packard's plans for replanting Apricot orchards on the property and explained that replanting this portion of the property along Taaffe Road was the final phase of the project. She noted that the fence would also enclose the adjacent property owned by Lucille Lang. And she noted that a 6' fence does not keep the deer from the plantings. Ms. Webb explained that the property description extends to the center line of the road and is undeveloped so no dedications have been made. She noted that the applicant wishes the fence to be as close to 160 the pavement as possible or a row of trees will be destroyed. Ms. Webb expressed agreement to Staffs recommendation for rescission of the variance in the event that the property is developed as the owner has no plans for subdivision. However, she outlined concerns regarding Staff's recommendation for planting Oak trees along the fence and asked that this be amended to allow more selection, specifically - Coast live Oaks where width would allow, and otherwise Bays and Madrones. Dot Schreiner, Chair, Pathways Committee, noted that Taaffe Road was one of the more dangerous roads for pedestrian and equestrian traffic. She and Bob Stutz went to the site with a representative of Brian Kangas Foulk and determined that the narrowest point from the edge of the pavement to the reference line is 15', which is ample room for pathway purposes. She asked that regarding landscaping, it be taken into account where people actually walk and this remain unobstructed. The Public Hearing was closed. Commissioner Pahl noted his support of the application, but also noted he had difficulty approving it as the recent application from Russell Paulnock was denied. He felt the only difference between the applications was the Packard property is 80 acres and Mr. Paulnock's only one acre; both applicants were concerned about deer. MOTION SECONDED AND PASSED: Motion by Carico, seconded by Noel to recommend �0 approval of the application based on the following Finding 1: The subject property has historically been maintained as an agricultural/open space use. To continue that use PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Draft March 14th, 1990 4bv Page 4 which is enjoyed by other properties of similar size and zoning, the applicant must be able to protect the orchards from deer with the additional fence height; and with findings 2, 3, and 4; and with Staff Recommended Condition #1, and Condition #2 amended to include Coast Live Oak, Madrone, and Bay trees. AYES: Commissioners Carico, Comiso, Noel, Pahl, Stutz NOES: None ABSENT: Chairman Ending ABSTAIN: Vice Chairman Jones 6.2 LANDS OF CIRCLE, 26541 Taaffe Road, A request for approval of a Tentative Map, conditional exception and adoption of a negative declaration for a 2 lot subdivision of 3.4 acres. This item was continued to the Planning Commission meeting of March 28, 1990. 6.3 LANDS OF FOWLER, 25810 Vinedo Lane, A request for approval of a Tentative Map, conditional exception, and adoption of a negative declaration for a 2 -lot subdivision of 4.05 acres. �Av Ann Jamison introduced this item, referring to the Staff Report. Planning Commission Disclosures: Commissioner Carico was on the Site Development Committee when this was reviewed. She also received a telephone call from the applicant three weeks ago relative to defering the item until geotechnical information was obtained. Commissioner Comiso also sat on the Site Development Committee when this was reviewed. She had been to the property three times walked the property with Mrs. Fowler, and had no other contact with the applicant. Commissioner Stutz noted her familiarity with the property as her daughter lives on the property. She has no economic interest in the property and stated her intention to vote on the application. Commissioner Noel and Commissioner Jones visited the site together and walked it with the Fowlers. Commissioner Pahl had been to the property and had nothing else to disclose. The Public Hearing was opened. Graham Fowler presented his rationale for the choice of lot lines. He wished to address policy issues raised by Staff, to ask direction from the Planning Commission regarding the proposal, and to address the draft conditions. He explained that over the past two years they have spent a considerable amount of time and money improving the property. Their intention is to subdivide and use the money gained to refurbish the existing house and �av improve the landscaping. Mr. Fowler noted that they intend to live there and this impacted how they wished the lot -line to be configured. The proposed lot line allows the PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Draft March 14th, 1990 4ar Page 5 new lot to be away from the existing house, retention of the openness of the area, maximizing the value of the land, the least impact on neighbors, and it conforms to existing geographical contours. He also outlined his concerns with the lot line proposed by Staff. That configuration would deny them the use of the orchard, development could destroy the orchard in part or in whole, its proximity to the existing house would destroy the openness of the area, their view would be into a fence line rather than onto the orchard as it exists now, their views as well as neighbors views would be obstructed, the light to the properties cut, and loss of privacy would result. Leon Pirafalo, the applicant's Planning Consultant, 260 State Street, Los Altos, also outlined the considerations for the lot line proposed and noted that technically the property was large enough that it could be divided into three lots, but the Fowlers weren't interested in that possibility. He noted the Fowler's wish to minimize the impact on their neighbors, retain the orchards and the view of the orchards. The proposed lot -line configuration does not require removal of trees. He noted that part of the circular drive was to be removed. He also indicated that they hadn't expected the proposal to be controversial. And he noted that lot #2 was characterized by flatness or a gentle slope which is conducive to a step -style residence. Bill Kull, Giuliani and Kull, the applicant's engineer, noted their proposal includes a �bv conditional exception to the roadway width requirements. The access way is currently a 27 private right of way, ingress/egress /public easement, with a l(Y water line easement and 5' public utilities/equestrian easement. He noted this currently serves four lots and they didn�t feel any additional safety benefits would be derived, and the existing setbacks are not affected, by the additional 13' requested by Staff. He also noted the condition from William Cotton regarding investigation of a potential fault, which requires trenching of the property from the proposed building site down to Altamont Road to determine whether there is a fault location. He expressed the applicant's agreement to do this but requested direction from the Planning Commission regarding the proposed building siting and the project feasibility relative to the other issues involved before proceeding with any soil testing. Mr. Gaulderi, 25830 Vinedo Lane, noted that the title report and maps for his property doWt show a future right-of-way. Bill Ekern clarified that in the original subdivision for Lands of Snygg, it was the intent of the owner to dedicate a right-of-way and it does show up on the final map as a future right- of-way. The Public Hearing was closed. Commissioner Noel noted that the first issue that must be addressed was determining the 4W lot -line configuration. He felt that the lot -line should not be changed to Staff PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Draft March 14th, 1990 Page 6 recommendation as that configuration imposes conditions that he wouldn't find acceptable living there. Commissioner Comiso noted that she had visited the site after the subdivision meeting at which it was reviewed and she also felt that Staffs proposed lot -line would place a burden on the property owners and the neighbors as that configuration would make the livable part of the property in everyone's front yard. She felt that instead, the Commission should place restrictions on the building and deed that can make a better lot. Ann Jamison suggested the Commission might wish to give the applicant direction on the lot -line configuration at this time, but questioned whether a recommendation for certification of a negative declaration could be made until all the geologic information was compiled. Commissioner Pahl noted that if the applicant were planning to remove the existing house, there we better ways to reconfigure the lot; however, as the owner plans to keep the existing home, he didn't see that they had much choice. Bill Ekern noted that to comply with the minimum policy standards developed by the Town's Right -of -Way Committee the access would have to be 40'. The additional 13' of dedicated ingress/egress easement required to get to that 40' doesn!t exist and would have to be obtained by the Fowlers through negotiation with the Gaultieris, or obtained someplace else. PASSED BY CONSENSUS: Motion by Pahl and passed by consensus, in the format of a straw vote, to recommend a conditional exception to the roadway access to no less than 40', and the lot line configuration as requested by the applicant. Mr. Kull clarified his understanding of the access issue. He noted the 13' right-of-way showed on the original subdivision map as a future right-of-way. A subsequent map was recorded separating the Gaultied property, and the 13' was not recorded by the Town. They did not feel there would be any additional benefit gained by turning the 13' strip into right- of-way. He also noted they are not able to offer an additional dedication and can only work with what previous Commissions and Staff have left for them to work with. At Commissioner Carico request, Ann Jamison noted that while she hadn't studied the surrounding area, the lot created in this subdivision was the only possible additional user of this access way, and she questioned that possibility. Commissioner Comiso noted that an additional three cars using the access way is not a significant number. Obr Bill Ekern noted that for anything less than a 60' right-of-way for a private road, the Commission must establish why they are recommending the conditional exception. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Draft Mardi 14th, 1990 4�W Page 7 Virgil Gaultieri, 13613 Burke Road, thought that 13' from his son's property (25830 Vinedo Lane) would make the lot substandard. He noted that they were going to have a difficult time getting the 40' and that his son had no objection to the existing 27 access way. Commissioner Carico noted that the fact that the 13' appears shows the Town intended the 13' be given if this was further used. At Commissioner Comiso's request, Bill Ekern clarified that while it didn't appear that loss of the square footage would make the Gaultieri property less than an acre, it could make it nonconforming in terms of development area and limit the potential development. Gene Mandel, Benito Lane, noted that the street is very narrow, and wondered whether it was even 27. He asked what the functional/practical difference would be for a wider road. Commissioner Noel noted that there would be a 16' road and the rest would be easements. And Bill Ekem clarified that it provides opportunity for widening the road to allow vehicles that pull off the paved road to stay off private property, and wide right-of-ways provide open space buffers. Mr. Mandel noted that an additional house will not make a significant difference in how 4W much the road is traveled. MOTION FAILED: Motion by Comiso and failed, in the format of a straw vote, to recommend a conditional exception to the 2T right-of-way. The Commission took a brief intermission to review the maps. Commissioner Pahl noted that while the 1984 Parcel Map shows a 13' future right-of-way, this 13' is not shown on the Subdivision Map. He proposed a conditional exception based on trying to resolve the issue and as the neighbors are in accord with this. PASSED BY CONSENSUS: Motion by Pahl in the format of a straw vote, to recommend a conditional exception to the 2T right-of-way. The motion passed with Commissioner Carico opposed. The Commission discussed the possibilities for continuing the hearing to a future meeting when all the geological information was obtained and discussed surfacing provisions and mitigating measures for the ingress /eggress. Ann Jamison clarified that it was appropriate for the overall health/safety concerns of all users that there be a way to get two cars by, which might require removing some existing landscaping. She noted it will also be necessary to address mitigation of the roadway in 4ar light its narrowness. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Mardi 14th, 1990 #6V Page 8 Draft Leon Pirafalo requested a continuance. He felt they had received enough direction from the Commission to work with Staff on the project while the necessary geologic information was being obtained. Commissioner Stutz noted that she travels the roadway often and rarely meets another car coming the other way. The road is flat so irs a matter of just waiting for the car to go by. At Commissioner Noel's request, Ann Jamison clarified that Staff's Draft Condition #4 is in response to state legislation requiring long-term methods for monitoring mitigations indicated in the negative declaration. At Commissioner Noel's request, Bill Ekern clarified that Staff s Draft Condition #14, requiring dual water meters, is an experimental measure to segregate outdoor irrigation and internal water use, as an effort of water conservation. MOTION SECONDED AND PASSED: Motion by Pahl, seconded by Comiso to continue the hearing to a subsequent Planning Commission meeting. AYES: Commissioners Carico, Comiso, Noel, Pahl, Stutz NOES: None 16, ABSENT: Chairman Emling ABSTAIN: Vice Chairman Jones 6.4 LANDS OF NELSON, 13870 La Paloma Road, A request for approval of a Tentative Map and adoption of a negative declaration for a 2 lot subdivision of 2.6 acres. Ann Jamison introduced the item, referring to the Staff Report. Planning Commission Disclosures: Commissioner Pahl had been by the site. Commissioner Noel drove by the site but didn't go in as the gates were closed. Commissioner Stutz drove to the gates. She didn't speak to anyone. Commissioner Jones walked the property with Mr. Nelson and spoke additionally with the applicant. Commissioner Comiso was on the Site Development Committee when the property was reviewed. Commissioner Carico was on the Site Development Committee when the project was reviewed and hasn't been to the property since. The Public Hearing was opened. Bill Kull, Giuliani and Kull, the applicant's engineer, referred to the Staff's Draft Conditions of Approval. He questioned, regarding Condition #4(2), whether there was any �W environmental mitigation requiring monitoring on the project. Bill Ekern responded that PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Draft March 14th, 1990 4W Page 9 this would pertain to any drainage structures reducing the rate of flow off-site and landscaping to provide visual/aesthetic mitigation. Mr. Kull referred to Condition #8, noting it is difficult to replace a 14 inch Pine tree in kind, and asked how the replacement costs for trees that are removed is assessed. Bill Ekern responded that there is an arborists' book on evaluating trees and the condition can be reworded to make it clear that the value will be placed by a certified arborist. Commissioner Jones questioned whether this was a program under development. Bill Ekern noted the evaluation of trees is an active program currently used by other cities. Ann Jamison noted that insurance companies place valuations on landscaping. Commissioner Comiso questioned Condition #8 whether the applicant was responsible for replacing trees where the building was to be built. Bill Ekem noted that they were breaking new ground to preserve what the Site Development Committee had considered a valuable asset of the property, and if the Commission wished to modify the provisions or don't believe it's an issue they can act accordingly. Commissioner Carico noted she was not interested in redefining the tree ordinance at this time and suggested that the applicant work with Staff to come up with wording that was 04W acceptable to them. She noted that they do want to preserve trees and replace any that are removed for building purposes. Commissioner Stutz noted that there need to be exceptions to what kinds of trees the Town wants to protect. She noted that with all the Pines going very quickly, it is not fair for an applicant to be required to replace them in kind. Commissioner Carico agreed that trees that are diseased or dead should not be included Mr. Kull asked that Condition # 8 be removed. He also noted that applying Condition #14 to the new lot is acceptable, but replumbing the existing house would be a burden. He noted that Condition #19 was too restrictive. He believes there would be negative economic impacts to the property and noted it appeared this lot was being singled out to conform with new setbacks, which he felt were arbitrary and hadn't been proven necessary to this project. They would prefer to work through new deed restrictions that would be less restrictive, and put more analysis into the Site Development process. Commissioner Pahl questioned the request for a straight driveway, and noted his preference for the curving drive. Mr. Kull responded that an evaluation had been done and the curvilinear nature and present location of the driveway had a negative impact regarding potential purchasers and development possibilities. 4hw PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES March 14th, 1990 04W Page 10 Draft At Commissioner Stutz request, Mr. Kull explained that the 25' driveway alignment as shown did not change the gross area and that the lot -line was placed to maximize the development area on lot #2. Gene O'Connor, 13800 La Paloma, a friend and neighbor of the Nelsons, noted his hope that the sense of openness would be preserved. He noted the area is currently single -story. He felt Condition #19 would be precedent setting and recommended it be restated to require the residence to remain within the 18' building height standard for a one story house to help retain the sense of openness. Carol Seeds, 13801 La Paloma noted that from her deck looks over the property and the driveway. She had concerns relative to the type of house and the setting of new precedents for the area. She noted the sense of spaciousness on La Paloma and hoped the house would be limited to 18'. She also noted her surprise that the applicants were proposing to put in a straight driveway and stated her preference for the curving driveway. Ms. Seeds also read letters from other residents on La Paloma, one letter from Ida and Mary Hoover at 13820 La Paloma, another letter from Juanita Reed, 13940 La Palorna, both letters expressed the owners interest in having the house limited to 18' in building height, preservation of the curvilinear driveway, and preservation of the rural atmosphere. 160 Raeanna Burkhardt -Carter, 13975 La Paloma, noted she is a long time friend of the Nelson's. She expressed concern that the rural atmosphere be preserved and noted that once things change, it is very difficult to reverse them, and when they're gone, can't be brought back. Doris Schecter, 12734 Alta Verde Lane, noted concerns that a two story house would stand out. She outlined her concerns regarding the siting of a house that was built two years ago on La Paloma, below her property, that was very large and cut into and destroyed the sloping hillside below her property. She hoped that any new residence would be more carefully designed and sited. The Public Hearing was closed. At Commissioner Noel's request, Bill Kull explained that the house was intended to be single story, but the 18' would be too restrictive and about 22' was what the proposed builder felt was necessary. Commissioner Stutz questioned how large the house under consideration was and noted that a 6,000 square foot house requires a higher roof, and if the house is in keeping with the neighborhood, 18' would not be too restrictive. MOTION SECONDED AND PASSED: Motion by Carico, seconded by Pahl to recommend approval of the negative environmental declaration for this property. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Draft March 14th, 1990 *4W Page 11 AYES: Commissioners Carico, Comiso, Noel, Pahl, Stutz NOES: None ABSENT: Chairman Emling ABSTAIN: Vice Chairman Jones The Commission discussed possibilities for the configuration of the driveway relative to the limitations this would place on development. Commissioner Stutz questioned whether it is fair to impact lot #1 with a driveway that comes one-third of the way into the property in at least one place. Commissioner Carico noted that retaining the existing driveway was agreed upon at Site Development, but was also the wish of the applicant at that time. Mr. Kull noted that the driveways curving into the property is a problem and the 30' setback beyond the easement is a problem as the ingress/egress forces the house into one portion of the property. Bill Ekern noted that the setbacks from the ingress/egress run through the property and the question is whether there will be a bow in the property or not. MOTION SECONDED AND FAILED: Motion by Pahl, seconded by Noel to recommend acceptance of the existing nature of the curved driveway and a conditional exception to invade the 160' building circle and that the ingress/egress easement follow the existing driveway, because the driveway is existing and aesthetically desirable, and moving the driveway would require removal of several large trees. AYES: Commissioners Pahl NOES: Commissioners Carico, Comiso, Noel, Stutz ABSENT: Chairman Emling ABSTAIN: Vice Chairman Jones The Commissioners reviewed the Draft Conditions of Approval in the Staff Report. At Commissioner Carico's request, Bill Ekern explained that relative to Condition #4, state law mandates the provisions, but it can be worded more tightly. Commissioner Jones questioned whether responsibility could be transferred to the City - Bill Ekern responded that it could not, the owner is responsible for maintaining the system. The commissioners discussed the requirements of Condition #8. Ann Jamison noted that a major concern with subdivisions is retaining the open rural sense. Trees contribute greatly to the quality of the environment. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Draft March 14th, 1990 #40 Page 12 Commissioner Stutz noted that trees would lessen the openness, but one way to retain the openness is to keep the properties free of fences. She noted that many new houses in town have fences. Larry Nelson, applicant, noted that there were problems with the Monterey Pines and he put in Canary Island Pines. He wished to keep the property as natural as possible, placing the trees in a natural manner. He also noted that he had a potential buyer and requested consideration of a 23' height for the building. He noted that with the trees 25' - 301 tall and the elevation from the road, the house would be well mitigated. Commissioner Carico thanked Staff for the concern regarding the area's sensitivity. She felt that amending Condition #8 so that no trees are removed is reasonable and gives people leeway in what they're doing. MOTION SECONDED AND PASSED: Motion by Pahl, seconded by Carico and passed by consensus to recommend the following Condition #8: No trees are to be removed unless indicated on an approved set of improvement plans. All trees removed as a result of construction improvements are to be replaced in kind. Alternatively, replacement costs, based on the value of the tree, may be paid to the Town as in -lieu fees for the street tree program. PASSED BY CONSENSUS: Motion by Pahl and passed by consensus to recommend the following Condition #14: Each new lot created in this subdivision is to have installed a water meter for irrigation and a separate meter for household use. These meters are to be installed as a portion of the improvements for the subdivision. The Commission discussed Condition #19. Commissioner Comiso noted that the wording was too restrictive before a specific project is seen, and preferred the alternative suggested by the applicant. MOTION SECONDED AND PASSED: Motion by Pahl, seconded by Comiso, and passed by consensus, with Commissioner Carico opposed, to recommend the following Condition #19 as proposed by the applicant: The applicant shall record a deed restriction to run with the land stating that parcel 1 may have potential development restrictions requiring the protection of mature trees and the view corridor along La Paloma Road. All residential development shall be subject to preliminary review and input from the town of Los Altos Flills regarding building siting, height limitations, building materials, and floor development area. MOTION SECONDED AND PASSED: Motion by Carico, seconded by Pahl to recommend approval of the Tentative Map for a 2 -lot subdivision of 2.6 acres with Staff Recommended Conditions 1 through 22 as amended. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Draft March 14th, 1990 Page 13 AYES: Commissioners Carico, Comiso, Noel, Pahl, Stutz NOES: None ABSENT: Chairman Emling ABSTAIN: Vice Chairman Jones 7. NEW BUSINESS 7.1 A request for Mr. David Wilkinson, 24240 Summerhill Avenue, for a clarification of a code interpretation relative to how interlocking pavers are counted into development area. Mr. Wilkinson noted that he is moving his drive and adding additional parking, and would like to use interlocking pavers. These pavers sit on the base rock with sand, no mortar, and are permeable to water. He noted they are currently being used in Mountain View and Saratoga. Because the pavers are permeable, those cities don't count them as coverage. He asked that the Commission consider counting the paver as 75 percent coverage. He noted it is desirable to encourage paving materials other than asphalt, and as this is more expensive, it might be necessary to give property owners some incentive to install them. 4,W Vice Chair Jones questioned how coverage for Turf -Block was calculated. Ann Jamison responded that with Turf Block, the applicant submits specifications on the percentage of open area and the coverage is counted proportionally. Commissioner Stutz noted that Turf -Block and the pavers were not at all comparable. People grow plantings in Turf -Block; however, the pavers fill up quickly with dust and dirt so that run-off is as considerable as if the ground were paved. Mr. Wilkinson noted that he was not asking the Commission to chart new ground. There is lab data regarding the permeability of the pavers. Commissioner Carico noted that the ordinance was specific on what should be counted as coverage. 7.2 A request from Staff for an interpretation of the intent of the code relative to allowing overhead lighting in parking areas associated with conditionally allowed uses. Ann Jamison introduced this item noting that St. Nicholas School, one of the Town's conditional uses, has requested a building permit to construct 30' Cobra lighting in the school's parking lot. She noted that the intent of the ordinance was not clear, and perhaps had not intended to provide for this kind of lighting. She wished for direction as to fftr whether this is a permissable option, or if it should be reviewed at administrative level PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Draft March 14th, 1990 (aw Page 14 Site Development for appropriate action, or if it will require modication of the Conditional Use Permit. Commissioner Carico suggested that they review the CUP as lighting is always considered as a part of that process. Commissioner Pahl expressed his agreement. Commissioner Stutz noted that there was no reason for overhead lighting as the area can be lighted with lights that are placed near the ground and are shaded down and across. At Commissioner Jones request, Ann Jamison clarified that she would inform St. Nicholas that it will be necessary to request an amendment of the CUP to place lighting in the parking lot and that they specify why they need it, what the lights look like, where they are to be placed and what kind of illumination will be created. 8. OLD BUSINESS 8.1 Discussion of the Planning Commission Work Program. PASSED BY CONSENSUS: Motion by Carico, passed by consensus to discuss this item at the next Planning Commission meeting. 9. ADTOURNMENT Commissioner Carico requested that Planning Commission's adoption of Roberts Rules of Order be agendized for possible revisions at the next Planning Commission meeting - The meeting was adjourned by consensus at 10:30 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Laura Johnson Planning Secretary 6W