Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout03/28/19904W PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING TOWN OF LOS ALTOS HILLS 26379 FREMONT ROAD LOS ALTOS HILLS, CALIFORNIA WEDNESDAY, MARCH 28TH, 1990 Approved cc: Cassettes #6-90(l), #6-90(2) 1. ROLL CALL AND PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE Nominated by Commissioner Carico, approved by consensus to have Stephen Pahl act as chairman of the Planning Commission at this meeting. Present: Acting Chairman Pahl and Commissioners Comiso, Carico, Noel, Stutz. Absent: Chairman Emling, Commissioner Jones 4W Staff. Bill Ekern, Director of Public Works; Ann Jamison, Planning Director. 2. CONSENT CALENDAR 2.1 Approval of the Minutes of March 14th, 1990. Acting Chairman Pahl removed the Minutes of March 14th, 1990 from the Consent Calendar. He wished, under LANDS OF PACKARD/LANG in the paragraph after the closing of the Public Hearing for the minutes to read: Commissioner Pahl noted his support of the application, but also noted he had difficulty distinguishing it from the recent application from Russell Paulnock which was denied. He felt the only significant difference between the applications... Acting Chairman Pahl requested under LANDS OF FOWLER that the Commission's vote to recommend a conditional exception to the roadway access to no less than 40' be eliminated for clarification purposes. MOTION SECONDED AND PASSED: Motion by Noel, seconded by Comiso, and passed to approve the Minutes of March 14th, 1990. AYES: Acting Chairman Pahl and Commissioners Carico, Comiso, Noel, Stutz. NOES: None ABSENT: Chairman Emling, Commissioner Jones 4W ABSTAIN: None PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Approved Mardi 28th, 1990 Page 2 3. REPORT FROM THE CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF MARCH 21ST, 1990 Commissioner Noel reported that Mayor Casey introduced Sandy Sloan, the new City Attorney. He noted that Dr. Howard Martin made a presentation on Hale Creek. He also noted that a proposed tree ordinance was introduced, and there were a number of residents in attendance regarding the proposal, many in response to a post card that was sent out. Concerns related to the rights of individuals and private property, and ambiguities in the ordinance. The ordinance will be re -introduced at a future Council meeting. Commissioner Noel noted that the Council selected a Town Center Master Plan concept. He also reported that the Council authorized microfilming of the Town's vital records, and the City Manager reported the parcel date base project was completed with 1100 parcels in the system. 4. REPORT FROM T14E SITE DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE MEETINGS OF MARCH 20TH AND MARCH 27IH March 20th: Ann Jamison reported that two applications were reviewed and approved: Murakami - Swimming Pool and Landscaping, The site has some extremely nice Oaks in the area of the pool, and the landscape designer showed great sensitivity in working with them. Conditions included moving the deck and play area from encroaching into the setback. Beedle - Landscaping, The Committee reviewed the plan, though Mr. Beedle had already done the plantings. Conditions included additional plantings in the rear corners of the site. March 27th: Hwang - Landscaping, As the house is not framed yet, review of the plan was postponed. Ann Jamison reported that two applications were reviewed and approved: Spaulding - Swimming Pool and Decking. The Committee felt grading for the pool was being done sensitively and was appropriate as proposed. No landscape plan was required to return. Conditions included plans for erosion control and wall design to be submitted to Staff. Liu - Landscaping, The plan did not address all concerns adequately. The Committee added plantings along the property line and along the rear of the property. Conditions included replacement of Mimosa trees and a Liquidamber tree if they die within a year's time, and a $2500 landscaping bond. 5. PRESENTATIONS FROM THE FLOOR There were no presentations from the floor. 6. PUBLIC HEARINGS 6.1 LANDS OF MCDONALD, 13621 Burke Road, A request for a Conditional Development Permit and Variance to the required 30' sideyard setback requirement for a new residence. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Approved March 28th, 1990 40 Page 3 Planning Commission Disclosures Acting Chairman Pahl visited the site and had not met the applicant. Commissioner Carico visited the site. Commissioner Comiso visited the site. Commissioner Stutz visited the site and did not speak with anyone regarding the project. Commissioner Noel walked the site. Ann Jamison introduced this item, referring to the Staff report, and outlined the calculations and findings required for a Conditional Development Permit and Variance. The Public Hearing was opened. Walter Chapman, the applicant's designer, presented background on the property and proposal. He noted the owners were not aware when they purchased the property that the Lot Unit Factor is under .5 with dedication of easements, making the development subject to a Conditional Development Permit. He noted that the sewer system did not extend to this site, but that septic field design for the proposed project had just been approved by the County. He also noted that with the setbacks, the building site available is only 40' wide, and the proposed building structure 6W would reduce the nonconformity of setback by increasing an existing 9' setback to a 21' setback. He noted they were able to conform with the requirements of standard site development except for the garage. Mr. Chapman referred to Staff's concerns about the appropriateness for the neighborhood, noted the property is in a small pocket of non -conforming lots, and presented a series of slides. He referred to several large homes on Burke Road, noting most have a 10' to 20' setbacks. He noted the house directly opposite has a Spanish tile roof and stucco finish, and other homes in the area of the same style. He also noted many homes in the area are presently being improved, the neighborhood is in transition, and felt the improvements to the house were not unrealistic for the area. He noted recommendations to rearrange the garage location and the difficulty of arranging the septic drain field which uses up the open space of the property. Commissioner Comiso asked where the septic drain field was proposed. The applicant explained the location, but didn't have drawings for review. Commissioner Comiso asked about the closest sewer line. Bill Ekern responded that Edith Road down Fremont Road was the closest, but the capacity for use on the line has been reached. Acting Chairman Pahl questioned where the two additional development area car spaces are proposed to be placed. Mr. Chapman responded that they were to be off the Fremont Road side of the property. Bill Ekern noted that the drain field cannot *0 be paved over and parking bays have to conform to setbacks and can!t be in the road PLANNING COMMISSION MINMS March 28th, 1990 #4V Page 4 Approved right-of-way. Ann Jamison suggested one alternative is moving the house toward Burke Road which might create area for a garage. At Commissioner Carico's request, Mr. Chapman explained that they were trying to minimize the amount of two-story on the house. He further noted that reducing the building footprint won't accomodate the issues of access, parking and the septic field. Ann Jamison suggested that if overall design was of concern to the Commission, they might wish to direct the applicant to take a look at whether there are other opportunities for the layout. Acting Chairman Pahl questioned whether the applicant had given consideration to accessing off Fremont Road, as it seemed quieter and less traveled than Burke Road, taking the septic leach field to the Burke Road side might allow a garage and parking on the Fremont side. Mr. Chapman responded that the applicant would like the sunny, quieter Fremont side of the property for outdoor living space. Placing the garage on the Burke Road side of the property provides a buffer from noise. The commissioners questioned current codes regarding paving. Ann Jamison noted 4W that a variance is required for paving in the setback and that parking bays would have to be some surface that was classified as MDA. Commissioner Comiso noted that given the layout of Burke and Fremont Roads, there is concern regarding problems parking even for one visitor. And at Acting Chairman Pahl's request, Mr. Chapman explained that underground parking is not a possibility due to septic requirements. Commissioner Carico noted that she realized some nonconforming lots cannot accomodate larger homes, and that is the reason for the Conditional Development Permit. Possibly, the lot can't accomodate all that the applicant is wishing for. Acting Chairman Pahl outlined an alternative for parking on the south side of the property, but Staff noted that the two 10'by 20' parking bay areas this required could not be accomodated. Cherry McDonald noted her frustation with the process of trying to build a house. She explained that they had checked to see if the site was buildable before purchasing the property. The previous owner was granted County Health approval for 4,000 square feet of living area and 6,000 square feet of total development area. As they got into the process, they found that additional square footage would be $ required for dedications. She noted her family's enjoyment of their property, the #AW large trees and sunny backyard, and the proximity to downtown Los Altos. And she noted they had spent hours trying to make the property look as good as possible. PLANNING COMMISSION MEVUTES Mardi 28th, 1990 6W Page 5 Approved She felt a smaller house would not be effective for her family; they are proposing a four bedroom home. Commissioner Noel asked the applicant if she would be willing to sacrifice some of the area in back for a garage, so that access would be from the back of the property on Fremont. Mrs. McDonald responded that as there was less traffic on Fremont, it would be more enjoyable for living area, and that a detached garage was awkward for the children and bringing in groceries. Commissioner Stutz noted that Mr. Chapman should have been aware that any lot that goes to the center of the road was going to require a 30' dedication. She felt the Commission should consider four spaces and noted the reason for setbacks was to keep the area open. She outlined a proposal for bringing the driveway from the North edge of the property. Mrs. McDonald noted that most of the neighbors have smaller setbacks. Commissioner Stutz noted they were probably built before incorporation and new building should conform to current Town standards. Commissioner Comiso noted there was a shorter distance to the kitchen from the 4W back of the house than the front, and questioned whether the applicant was absolutely opposed to having the garage in the back. The Commission and applicant discussed using an existing structure as a garage. Acting Chairman Pahl emphasized that they were not trying to work against the applicant, but with them. The Public Hearing was closed. MOTION SECONDED AND PASSED: Motion by Carico, seconded by Stutz to recommend that the application be continued to a future Planning Commission to give the applicant an opportunity to verify the drain field placement and to address the direction of the Planning Commission, AYES: Acting Chairman Pahl, Commissioners Carico, Comiso, Noel, Stutz NOES: None ABSENT: Chairman Emling, Commissioner Jones 4W PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES March 28th, 1990 4W Page 6 Approved 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. Planning Commission Disclosures: Acting Chairman Pahl visited the property and reviewed a report provided by Commissioner Comiso done by Terrasearch. He was also on the Subdivision Committee when the project was reviewed Commissioner Carico visited the property and didn't know about the report. Commissioner Comiso visited the site, spoke with Mr. Circle and received the report. She indicated to Mr. Circle that her main concern was the fault, and he informed her of a geological investigation of the property. She received the report that afternoon and hadn't seen it until that afternoon. Commissioner Stutz noted she thought she knew which property was being discussed but there was no address on the property. Commissioner Noel drove around the site. Ann Jamison introduced this item, referring to the Staff Report. She noted the Subdivision Committee had reviewed the proposal and concerns included the location of the earthquake fault, the 30% slope in the conservation easement, and 44W the overall suitability of the lot for development. She noted the Town Geologists review and appropriateness of the setbacks from the fault. The Public Hearing was opened. Paul Nowack, the applicant's civil engineer addressed the Staff Report and noted that a consultant had completed a study which reflected his own findings, addressing the fault location, inclusion of 30% slope in conservation easements, setbacks, easements, the leach field, conservation easements, and crowding and visual impact of the proposed house. They determined the fault location and where a new residence building could be safely built. He explained a drawing showing the conservations easement and how they propose to handle the 30% slope. He noted it will require minimal grading as the lower floor is there naturally for the proposed split level house design. The only reason for the easement is to protect stability, and the placement of the house where the 30% slope prevents it from being tampered with. He noted the proposal reflects the maximum building possible, though they don't expect the house to be that large. Mr. Nowack noted the conformance to setbacks, so there is no horizontal crowding, and also that the proposed building site was moved downhill so the horizon is not crowded vertically. He also noted the steep driveway has been eliminated from the proposal by combining the existing driveway, which will eliminate grading. Regarding the septic area, they are in # agreement with the County requirements for both parcels. He noted lot B has an 4W existing septic drain field that is failing and they propose to remove the old fill and backfill the field. He noted the County Health Department is agreeable to PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Approved March 28th, 1990 Page 7 conditioning the leach field on Parcel B to be installed to their satisfaction. Mr. Nowack then referred to the Environmental Checklist completed by Staff. He noted that there were only six 'maybe' answers out of 63 items, and outlined how each could be addressed and changed to 'no' answers. In his opinion, if this project requires an EIR, every house in Town does. Commissioner Noel noted that when there is a 30% slope, there is potential for a number of environmental impacts. He felt six 'maybe' answers were more than usual. At Commissioner Carico's request Ann Jamison responded that the graphics demonstrate the expansion leach fields for the new residence will be in the conservation easement and questioned whether this could be carried out without altering conditions on site. She noted the environmental review is done early in the process so the Planning Commission can address whether concerns can be adequately mitigated. There are concerns relative to this application, altering natural terrain, topographical, and conditions of the lot, that are difficult to mitigate. The commissioners questioned provisions for the leach fields for each parcel. Ann 4W Jamison noted that if the property is subdivided it would result in construction to accomodate the subdivision in the conservation easement, against current Town guidelines. Ken Pastoroff, noted that leach fields are buried around 4' deep and separated line on line at 10' intervals, and has been done often on hills with 30% slope. There is only a difference in interval to 15' when the slope is 40%. Ann Jamison noted she did not question whether the fields can be engineered, but whether the integrity of the property can be maintained. Commissioner Comiso noted that if the work had been completed before the subdivision, it could have been put into the conservation easement. Terry Gossett, 26600 Elena Road, referred to his letter to the Planning Commission regarding the proposal. His concerns included geolotechnical hazards, drainage, slope stability, and leach field layout. He noted the applicant's drawings don't reflect a 15' cut where his property is located on the left boundary. He noted that as had occurred in the winter of 1981-82, considerable water, even without any absorption changes, could create problems of exacerbated run-off. He noted a shifting of his house by 3" that year, and expressed concern relative to the extra weight being located above his property. Mr. Gossett also outlined concerns with some of the 'no' 4W answers on the Environmental Checklist PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Approved Mardi 28th, 1990 64W Page 8 Bill Sullivan, 26531 Taaffe Road, noted his concern that the building site is unbalanced. His home, built in 1945, violates the 30' setback. There is a single access road for one family, and he expressed concern regarding the narrowness of the driveway. If the house is placed as proposed, his home and the new house Arill be pushed together, greatly impacting the area from his and the new resident's standpoints. He also noted that the proposal results in the impression of the house looming over his house. Mr. Sullivan noted the slope conservation easement violation, and wondered that exemption could be granted for the site with so many associated questions. Glen Fuller, 12989 Vista Del Valle Court, an engineering analyst, referr ed to the Municipal Code 9-1.604 Section D establishing lots greater than one acre. He noted that with a 10 - 15% slope, the minimum lot size should increase from 1 up to 7 acres. The existing 22% grade on the three acres, on a curve suggests the lot was sized to take slope into account. He noted concerns with stability of the property that hadn't been addressed. He has stability problems on his property related to the soils condition and foundation requirements. He also noted Section E regarding lots adequate building sites without impacting the natural qualities of the lot. He felt the owner would experience short term financial benefits, but at long-term 60 consequences for the Town and adjacent property owners. Mr. Pasteroff noted the size of the property does meet Town ordinances. He feels the impact on the area will be the same as for any area and given time for establishment of the landscaping everyone will be able to live with the development very well. The Public Hearing was dosed. Commissioner Comiso noted the geologic issues had been her major concern until Staff assured her that the Terrasearch study addressed the geologic issues related to the fault. Commissioner Carico referred to the Staff Report addressing modification of Town policy. Ann Jamison noted that while pushing the building site lower eliminated the need for a conditional exception, with the side setbacks and the ingress/egress easement setbacks and area in the middle with a 30% slope, she is concerned with building a house, unless it is extremely unusually shaped, without substantially affecting the areas of 30% or greater slope. Relative to Town policy of putting 30% slope into conservation easements and not building on them, Ms. Jamison questioned how the lot could be developed without modifications to policy. Commissioner Noel questioned whether the concerns raised by neighbors may affect responses on the Environmental Checklist. Ann Jamison responded that if 4W additional environmental review is felt to be necessary, the Commission has the option to provide that direction to the applicant. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Approved March 28th, 1990 4W Page 9 Acting Chairman Pahl referred to residences off Page Mill Road and on Elena Road built on a slope of 45 - 50%, noting that all residents should be treated equally. He questioned whether a residence on a 30% slope required an EIR, but noted that he'd had concerns regarding the geologic issues before seeing the report from Terrasearch. Ann Jamison responded that the Planning Commission should recommend certification if it was felt the proposal could be accomodated without substantial environmental impacts. She suggested consideration of whether it is the current policy of the Town, in addition to guidelines from CEQA. She agreed there are probably steeper sites in Town created under different subdivision requirements, but questioned whether it was in the Town's best interest to create new lots with steep slopes and significantly constrained building area. Commissioner Carico noted that the existing homes on steeper slopes are the reason they tried to address not having to address the situation of building on these slopes. She noted the ordinances are a contract the commissioners sign with the Town that protect everyone and should be applied equally to all applications. Commissioner Noel noted he had numerous questions including additional 'maybe' answers from the neighbors that should be addressed on the Environmental #AW Checklist. He noted he had voted against the residence on Page Mill Road referred to by Acting Chairman Pahl and he did not believe it was possible to recommend certification of a Negative Declaration. Commissioner Comiso noted she initially had concerns such as those the neighbors had expressed until she read the geotechnical report from Terrasearch. MOTION SECONDED AND FAILED: Motion by Noel, seconded by Carico to recommend the City Council not certify the Negative Environmental Declaration for the proposed subdivision based on the following findings: The building circle on Parcel A is severely impacted by the earthquake fault human habitation setback, building setbacks from the side property lines and the driveway access easements, septic leach field and area of 30% slope which present Town policy indicates should be in a conservation easement, the crowding of this house on the site relative to the existing residence and the house on the parcel to the east, lack of area for outdoor living space. In light of present Town policies, the Town is unable to certify a negative environmental declaration for this project. AYES: Commissioners Carico, Noel NOES: Acting Chairman Pahl, Commissioner Comiso ABSENT: Chairman Emling, Commissioner Jones 4W ABSTAIN: Commissioner Stutz PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES March 28th, 1990 4W Page10 Approved Commissioner Carico referred to Roberts Rules of Order and the chairman's abstaining from vote and debate except to break a tie. Acting Chairman Pahl responded by making a ruling to participate in discussion and voting. MOTION SECONDED AND FAILED: Motion by Comiso, seconded by Pahl to recommend certification of Negative Environmental Declaration for the proposed subdivision with revisions to the map as submitted by the applicant. AYES: Acting Chairman Pahl, Commissioner Comiso NOES: Commissioners Carico, Noel ABSENT: Chairman Emling, Commissioner Jones ABSTAIN: Commissioner Stutz As the Commission was unable to make a recommendation this item was forwarded to Council with no recommendation. 7. NEW BUSINESS 7.1 Update from the League of California Cities Planning Commissioners Institute. Acting Chairman Pahl noted that the Commissioners had agreed that as Commissioner Noel was the only one absent from the Institute, they would answer any questions he had. Commissioner Carico noted she is writing a report for the Planning Commission and City Council and will make her comments available for review. She also noted she was waiting for the tapes on the Brown Act and the FPP, but there were many violations in the Commission and City Council. Acting Chairman Pahl referred to Item 8.3, and noted that it is time to address the General Plan. This was a major topic of discussion at every seminar he attended. Commissioner Stutz asked that lighting be agendized for a future Planning Commission meeting as it was proliferating on many houses. 8. OLD BUSINESS 8.1 Discussion of Fences Ann Jamison presented a series of slides on fences in the Town, including post and rail, post and wire, painted chainlink and galvanized steel chainlink. She asked the 4W commission to consider height/setback provisions, colors, design guidelines as they PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES March 28th, 1990 Page 11 Approved viewed the slides. She also suggested consideration of how fences contribute to defining the character of the Town. Commissioner Carico asked Staff whether they had problems with the present ordinances. Ann Jamison responded that it's difficult to tell an applicant what types of fencing is preferable without established guidelines from the Town. Commissioner Stutz suggested a kind of fence booklet with examples of different types of fences that indicate the kinds of fence the Planning Commission would like to see in Town. Acting Chairman Pahl felt black or brown chainlink fences were preferable to galvanized steel chainlink. He also noted the increased number of requests for fences to keep deer off property and felt the Commissioner should address the color of fences and allowing more flexibility in height with open types of fences. Commissioner Stutz noted so many deer are coming down into the populated areas because of the drought. Ann Jamison referred to Acting Chairman Pahl's comment and questioned whether 4W the Commission wished to consider provisions for suggesting fences closer to the reference line be post and hogwire type fence rather than chainlink. The Commission considered guidelines for mitigation of fences through landscaping, and mandating color guidelines specifically for chainlink fences. Acting Chairman Pahl felt that Staff should look into changing the ordinance to develop possibilites for resolving the Commission's concerns, and the commissioners discussed providing direction to Staff. Commissioner Carico noted that they have a fence ordinance and if it was going to be changed, she would like it voted on and recorded. Acting Chairman Pahl clarified his concept, suggesting that Staff investigate how the CommissioWs concerns can be addressed. If it is to be done by a draft ordinance change, then Staff should make that suggestion and then the Commission could vote on a recommendation. The commissioner discussed deer fences and Ann Jamison noted she would look at provisions for classification of certain types of fences as deer fences. 4me PLANNING COMMISSION MNUTES Approved March 28th, 1990 4�W Page 12 8.2 Consideration of a Resolution adopting Robert's Rules of Order with modifications Commissioner Stutz referred to a seminar she attended at the Planning Commissioner's Institute and noted Mr. Brazil, who gave the seminar, was adamant the chairman shouldn't vote except to break a tie as it just extends the meeting time. She noted she wouldn't accept sections 1, 2, or 3. Commissioner Carico also attended that seminar. Commissioner Comiso asked whether that is his opinion or what Roberts Rules defines. Commissioner Stutz responded that it is Robert's Rules. She also noted he recommends whoever chairs the Council meetings should refrain from voting and not enter into discussions of items. Commissioner Noel noted that at the City Council meeting, Councilmember Siegel said he would look into the rule. Commissioner Noel suggested waiting to refer this to the upcoming joint meeting with Council. #1W Toni Casey noted that Councilmember Siegel indicated that if the Planning Commission didn't change that rule, the City Council would change it for them. Acting Chairman Pahl felt there was a reason for seven commissioners to be there. He noted the chair position always votes last on any boards he's served on. The rule would make the Commission effectively a six person committee. Commissioner Stutz noted she was surprised at the Commissioner's Institute that so many cities had only five commissioners and Commissioner Noel noted that only one city in Santa Clara County has five commissioners. MOTION MADE AND WITHDRAWN: Motion by Pahl, seconded by Comiso and withdrawn to approve the resolution to adopt Roberts Rules of Order. Acting Chairman Pahl asked that this item be addressed at the next Planning Commission meeting at which all seven commissioners will be present. Commissioner Carico, noted that she was initially against the chair's refraining from vote and debate, but after the San Diego meeting felt it deserved the consideration of the whole Commission. She also asked whether City Attorney Sandy Sloan would be present at a future Planning Commission meetings. Ann Jamison noted that Ms. Sloan had expressed her intentions to attend an upcoming meeting. Ms. Jamison 4W asked that the commissioners let her know of any items they would like addressed PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Mardi 28th, 1990 #4V Page 13 4W 4W Approved by the City Attorney and she would request Ms. Sloan's presence at an upcoming meeting. 8.3 Discussion of the Planning Commission Work Program Acting Chairman Pahl suggested making consideration of the General Plan an approachable task by agreeing to review a certain amount each Commission meeting. At Commissioner Carico's request, Ann Jamison noted that the Housing Ordinance was reviewed in 1988, but was not approved by the State. Consequently, an update is necessary. She suggested determining where the Plan is deficit and where it's adequate to get a sense of direction of the task. She also questioned whether the project can be done solely using existing Staff. 9. ADIOURNMENT MOTION MADE AND SECONDED: Motion by Comiso, seconded by Stutz and approved by consensus to adjourn the meeting at 10:45 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Laurajohnson Planning Secretary