Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout04/11/1990APPROVED t PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING TOWN OF LOS ALTOS HILLS 26379 FREMONT ROAD LOS ALTOS HILLS, CALIFORNIA WEDNESDAY, APRIL 11TH, 1990 Approved cc: Cassettes #7-90(1), 7-90(2) 1. ROLL CALL AND PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE Present: Chairman Emling and Commissioners Carico, Noel, Pahl, Stutz. Absent: Commissioners Comiso and Jones. Staff: Bill Ekern, Director of Public Works; Ann Jamison, Planning Director. 2. CONSENT CALENDAR 4 2.1 Approval of the Minutes of March 28th, 1990. Commissioner Carico removed the Minutes of March 28th, 1990 to request clarification on Item 2.1. She wished to make certain her 'no' vote was recorded relative to a Planning Commission recommendation of a conditional exception to the roadway access to no less than 40' feet for LANDS OF FOWLER at the March 14th, 1990 meeting. Commissioner Pahl had moved and Commissioner Comiso seconded elimination of this motion from the Minutes of March 14th, 1990 for clarification purposes. Commissioner Carico also requested that additional information be included in Commissioner Comiso's motion to approve the negative environmental declaration for LANDS OF CIRCLE relative to the Terrasearch geotechnical report Commissioners Comiso and Pahl had the opportunity to review. Due to Commissioner Comiso's absence at this meeting the Commission was unable to take action on this item. MOTION SECONDED AND PASSED: Motion by Noel, seconded by Carico, and passed to continue this item to the Planning Commission meeting of April 25th, 1990. L AYES: Commissioners Carico, Noel, Pahl, Stutz NOES: None PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Approved April 11th, 1990 L Page 2 ABSENT: Commissioners Comiso and Jones ABSTAIN: Chairman Emling 3. REPORT FROM THE CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF APRIL, 1990 Commissioner Pahl reported that regarding LANDS OF NELSON, the Council voted to maintain the curvilinear drive, reversing the Commission's 6-1 vote. The Council required that any new structures be no more than 22' in height and at least 50' back from the front property line, and approved the tentative map. Ann Jamison noted that Council directed that the Planning Commission take no action regarding a fence ordinance until it is seen by Council. She further noted that the Council established a policy that the Commission recommend to Council scheduling of any projects the Commission would like Staff to work on. The Council also sent strong word to the Commission regarding Robert's Rules of Order, directing the Commission to adopt an amendment to provide for the chair's participation in discussions, motions, actions. Miss Jamison also noted that regarding the Quarry Hills annexation, Council directed the Commission to look at items for discussion from Staff and send back information to Council, not take any 4 specific action. Commissioner Stutz questioned why the Council did not annex the whole property, as the Planning Commission recommended. Bill Ekern responded that the Council wished to act on the subdivision in its entirety, not look at any separate item prior to reviewing the subdivision, and outlined the timeline for discussion of the Quarry. Commissioner Carico requested the City Attorney's opinion regarding the chair's participation in meetings until such time as an amendment to Robert's Rules of order is adopted. 4. REPORT FROM THE SITE DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE MEETINGS OF APRIL 3RD AND 10TH There were no Site Development Committee meetings on April 3rd or 10th. Ann Jamison requested the commissioners notify her in advance if they expected to be unable to attend the Planning Commission Site Development meetings. Commissioner Stutz requested that only four projects be scheduled for review at the Planning Commission Site Development meetings. ( 5. PRESENTATIONS FROM THE FLOOR aw There were no presentations from the floor. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Approved April 11th, 1990 4W Page 3 6. PUBLIC HEARINGS 6.1 LANDS OF HOCKETT, 12200 Edgediff Place, A request for a variance to the maximum development area allowed by the Zoning Code and a Site Development Permit. Ann Jamison introduced this item, referring to the Staff report. Planning Commission Disclosures Commissioner Carico noted she had nothing to disclose. She visited the property and didn't speak to anyone regarding the property. Chairman Emling visited the property. Commissioner Stutz noted she visited the property and can see it from her house. Commissioner Noel visited the property and spoke with Mr. Hockett. Commissioner Pahl visited the property and had spoken with Mr. Hockett by telephone the previous week regarding the application. The Public Hearing was opened Bill Hockett noted he read the Staff Report and felt it was complete. He felt the ` remodel would strengthen the foundation of the structure, which suffered in the October earthquake. He noted their attempts to minimize the MDA in designing the remodel, and the constraints imposed by the unusual size and shape of the property. He also noted the project was acceptable to his neighbors. And, he explained the neighbors on either side of his property had larger houses than the Hockett's present 1800 square feet of living spam. The Public Hearing was closed. MOTION SECONDED AND PASSED: Motion by Carico, seconded by Noel to recommend approval of a variance to the maximum development area with Staff Suggested Findings 1 - 4. AYES: Chairman Emling, Commissioners Carico, Noel, Pahl, Stutz NOES: None ABSENT: Commissioners Comiso, Jones Commissioner Pahl referred to Condition #5 of Staff's Recommended Conditions of Approval and noted his reluctance to condition the Hocketts to retain a surveyor when they would not be building near the setbacks. Ann Jamison noted that as there had been many inquiries regarding setbacks in the past, Staff included this for 4 consistency. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Approved April 11th, 1990 L Page 4 At Chairman Emling's request, Ann Jamison explained that building placement can be inspected by the Town building inspectors. Chairman Emling referred to two residences in Town that didn't appear to have been placed as approved. Commissioner Stutz noted both were new houses and further noted her concern related to placement of new residences as these are likely to be placed differently than approved. MOTION SECONDED AND PASSED: Motion by Noel, seconded by Stutz to recommend approval of the Site Development Permit with Staff's recommended Site Development Conditions 1 - 4, 6, and 7, and with the following Condition #5: Setbacks must be verified by a licensed land surveyor at framing, if determined by Staff to be needed, prior to any further building inspections. AYES: Commissioners Noel, Pahl, Stutz NOES: Chairman Emling, Commissioner Carico ABSENT: Commissioner Comiso, Jones Commissioner Carico qualified her vote against the Site Development Permit, noting the alteration of Condition #5 established a procedure the Commission might regret. She felt Staff specified verification of placement of the house for consistency. Chairman Emling noted his agreement with Commissioner Carico. Commissioner Pahl expressed his appreciation to Staff regarding the Staff Report, noting the appropriateness of the recommendations. 6.2 Consideration of proposed ordinance amendments relating to the expiration and discontinuance of Conditional Use Permits, Conditional Development Permits and Variances. Ann Jamison introduced this item, referring to the Staff Report. She noted the intent was to provide parameters regarding expiration of CUP's, CDP's, and Variances in a more positive format, with provisions for special circumstances. At Commissioner Noel's request, Ann Jamison explained that certification of a Negative Declaration is a CEQA requirement as changes could potentially affect the use of land. She noted she had discussed the requirement with the City Attorney. Commissioner Pahl noted the Staff Report was well done. He agreed with the provisions for CUP's and CDP's; however, he felt Variances should have a specific term attached, not a default provision, and suggested modifying the language to L include that specific terms of variances must be noted in the conditions of approval. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES April 11th,1990 4 Page 5 Approved Ann Jamison questioned whether variances should be subject to extensions, as outlined in Section d. Commissioner Pahl responded affirmatively. Commissioner Carico noted that was the intent of the amendment; however, Commissioner Pahl felt that the proposed wording assumes property owners' knowledge of the Town's zoning ordinances. Ann Jamison noted that the proposed ordinance could be revised, or provision of an expiration date could be established as Town policy. Commissioner Noel questioned whether Staff notified property owners when the permit was about to expire, and if not, couldn't the applicant be notified. Ann Jamison responded that when a Site Development permit is issued, a letter of notification is sent to the owners and states the expiration date. Due to the volume of applications, keeping track of those about to expire will require more Staff. She also noted extensions are routinely granted at the applicants' request, an average of two per month, unless some significant policy of the Town has changed. At Commissioner Stutz's request, Bill Ekern clarified that at this time, the Town's ordinance does not allow for a lapsing of ordinances. Placing a time limit makes that a non -issue. Placing a one year limit on a specific project, with the site development, zoning, and building permits only valid for one year, there is incentive to proceed with the project. Ann Jamison noted that often the design of a structure is critical to whether the variance can be granted or not. The intent is to include the mitigation inherent in the design of a specific structure in the approval process and place a time limit so the variance won't come up in 20 years with a completely different structure, requiring different types of mitigation. Commissioner Noel questioned whether the permits could be entered on the computer, and readily accessed. Ann Jamison responded that this could be done starting in 1989, but obtaining information on all the permits granted over the last 30 years would be very difficult. Ms. Jamison noted that if a Conditional Use Permit is being used, then the time frame specified in the permit would apply. However, when uses are abandoned, the concern is that a similar use shouldn't be reestablished without the Town's review. Commissioner Pahl noted the difficulty of memorizing every city's default clauses, and that specifying a time frame on an approved variance would make the information more readily apparent to the property owner, and would likely be picked up by the title company and specified as part of the title policy. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES April I1th,1990 Page 6 Approved The Public Hearing was opened. No one wishing to speak, the Public Hearing was closed. M071ON SECONDED AND PASSED: Motion by Pahl, seconded by Noel to recommend adoption of the Negative Environmental Declaration. AYES: Chairman Emling and Commissioners Carico, Noel, Pahl, Stutz NOES: None ABSENT: Commissioner Comiso, Jones MOTION SECONDED AND PASSED: Motion by Pahl, seconded by Noel to recommend adoption of Staff's proposed ordinance amendment addressing the expiration and discontinuance of Conditional Use Permits, Conditional Development Permits and Variances, adopting Staff's conceptual language, with the exception that Variances must have a specified expiration date with the recommendation of the approving body. AYES: Chairman Emling and Commissioners Carico, Noel, Pahl, Stutz NOES: None 4 ABSENT: Commissioner Comiso, Jones 6.3 Consideration of proposed ordinance amendments relating to private roads and building setbacks from road rights-of-way. Bill Ekern introduced this item, referring to the Staff Report. Commissioner Noel questioned how this would pertain to the Fowler application. Bill Ekern responded that the Planning Commission would determine that the driveway easement constitutes either a public or private road, determine the ultimate acceptable rightof-way, and for public roads, where the right-of-way is less than the current Town standards, the Commission will need to make decisions on dedication of property adjacent to that to achieve the right-of-way. The Public Hearing was opened. No one wishing to speak, the Public Hearing was closed. Commissioner Stutz referred to page 2 of the ordinance and noted that perhaps residents should have the right to determine where they want the 40' setback and the 30' setback. Bill Ekern noted the ordinance changed when the Town adopted the Site Development Ordinance, to provide for the Town's analysis of the site to determine what kinds of impacts exist. 4 MOTION SECONDED AND PASSED: Motion by Carico, seconded by Stutz to recommend adoption of the Negative Environmental Declaration. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Approved April 11th, 1990 Page 7 AYES: Chairman Emling and Commissioners Carico, Noel, Pahl, Stutz NOES: None ABSENT: Commissioner Comiso, Jones MOTION SECONDED AND PASSED: Motion by Carico, seconded by Pahl to recommend approval of Staff's proposed ordinance relating to private roads and the redefinition of setback lines from roads. AYES: Chairman Emling and Commissioners Carico, Noel, Pahl, Stutz NOES: None ABSENT: Commissioner Comiso, Jones 7. NEW BUSINESS 7.1 LANDS OF QUARRY HILLS, Discussion of the reclamation plan for the Lands of Quarry Hills. Chairman Emling noted that all the staff reports are very clear and easily read. Commissioner Pahl agreed, and noted he would like Mr. Vidovich's input on the item, possibly continuing this item to the next Planning Commission meeting. Bill Ekern responded that Mr. Vidovich will not be able to attend on April 25, and that another discussion relative to the application was agendized for that date. He noted Staff would like to carry any concerns of the Commission to the Council at their next meeting for their discussion, and asked for any comments or concerns. Commissioner Emling noted he could support all the recommendations of Staff delineated in the report. Commissioner Stutz questioned how the grading of the site had been modified. Bill Ekern responded that the creek keeps moving as the road moves and as the lot configuration moves. There have been further changes with proposals to fill in the Quarry and lessen the amount of lake surface. The plan calls for massive grading of the entire site, moving of dirt, removal of bad material from the quarry, and reconfiguring the land from anything that currently exists. Commissioner Stutz questioned whether the County approved Reclamation Plan applied to the upper property, a potential quarry, if annexed. Bill Ekern responded that he understood that in the County the upper portion of the property could be quarried. It would require a permit, and a reclamation plan would have to be proposed to open the quarry. 4 Commissioner Stutz noted the original plan to quarry it out and finish quarrying in 1996, at which time the property was to become housing. Mr. Ekern noted the PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES April 11th,1990 Page 8 Approved reclamation plan approved by the County is generally the initial configuration of the quarry the Commission saw two years ago. Commissioner Carico questioned whether there is a governing agency that always retains jurisdiction over operation of the quarry. Bill Ekern noted that there is a state board that governs mining, but if the property is annexed the Town would control the reclamation and regulation of the quarry. Commissioner Carico questioned governing of the lake and insurance liability. Bill Ekern responded that it was the topic of discussion for the next meeting. Commissioner Carico requested the City Attorney's participation at that session, to let the Commission know legally what they can do. Mr. Ekern responded he would speak to the City Manager regarding the City Attorney's schedule. At Commissioner Stutz's request, Bill Ekern noted that the Patton Brothers plan was the basis for Mr. Vidovich's plan; however, Mr. Vidovich included additional information on analysis of the lake, planting proposals. He noted the plan approved by the County generally follows the original subdivision sculpting. The intent is over time to fill the quarry with imported or Hale Creek water. So the quarry site is not considered a dam, the water has to have release at the level of Hale Creek which will entail a substantial spillway. Mr. Ekern noted that the County currently has a Reclamation Plan; however, the conditions of approval can be stricter than the Reclamation Plan. He asked for any guidance to staff from the Commission as they go over the issues and Staff tries to write conditions of approval. Chairman Ending clarified the request for the City Attorney's participation in a Planning Commission meeting in 2 or 4 weeks. Ms. Jamison noted Mr. Vidovich would not be available April 25th. Chairman Emling suggested that the Commission's meeting with the City Attorney to discuss any concerns the Commission had be held around 7.00 p.m., prior to a future Commission meeting. 7.2 LANDS OF GHAFOURI, 27580 Elena Road, Appeal of the decision of the director of Public Works relative to the clearing of brush in a Conservation Easement. Bill Ekern introduced this item and read the definition of a conservation easement, Section 9-1.214 of the Municipal Code. At Commissioner Noel's request, Bill Ekern explained that the Fire Department had expressed concern regarding combustible materials on the hillside. He noted concern was raised with the original proposal to build the house up to the conservation easement and no other property owner has been allowed to clear a PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES April 11th, 1990 4 Page 9 Approved conservation easement with a bulldozer. The Fire Department issued standard concerns that combustible material within 30' of a building needs to be cleared. Mr. Ghafouri, 27580 Elena Road, noted his concern about the bushes came after building the house. Assistant Fire Chief Stu Farwell visited the site and contacted Bill Ekern to let him know the combustible material should be cleared. He noted the house was built according to the terms of the subdivision and he hadn't asked for any deviation. He explained he only wanted to replace the brush with non- combustible vegetation, not clear the easement. Commissioner Stutz noted that she was on the Site Development Committee when Mr. Ghafouri's new residence was reviewed, and he was told at that time that he would only be allowed to remove poison oak from the conservation easement. She also noted it takes some time for vegetation to grow, and the applicant shouldn't be watering it during the present drought. Chairman Emling noted that Mr. Ghafouri is not prevented from clearing the easement, but there are alternatives to using a bulldozer. Mr. Ghafouri preferred not to clean by hand when machinery is available. MOTION SECONDED AND PASSED: Motion by Pahl, seconded by Carico to recommend upholding and giving full support to the letter from the Director of Public Works dated March 2, 1990. AYES: Chairman Emling and Commissioners Carico, Noel, Pahl, Stutz NOES: None ABSENT: Commissioner Comiso, Jones 7.3 Discussion of code provisions relative to outdoor lighting. Chairman Emling referred to a site off I-280 and questioned whether there were any restrictions regarding the number of lights people can place on their property. Ann Jamison responded there were currently no restrictions. Commissioner Stutz noted illustrations of how lights can look were needed. Ann Jamison noted that in alignment with the City Council's direction, she would note the Commission's wish to look into these issues. Commissioner Stutz asked that Ms. Jamison also inform the Council of the 4W Commission's wish to look into the issue of fences. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Approved April 11th, 1990 Page 10 7.4 Oral presentation by Staff relative to encouragement of a Site Analysis Stage in the development approval process. Ann Jamison outlined the concept of site analysis. She explained that the Site Development process takes into account the less objective aspects of an application, and suggested that by flipping the process to allow for consideration of what exists on the site, applicants can be more aware of the constraints of the property. The Commission discussed possibilities for incorporating site analysis into the review process. This included consideration of the following: what types of applications would particularly benefit from the process (subdivisions, new residences, major additions); fees for the process; level of review (site committee, staff); appeals of the outcome to the Site Development Committee; etc. The Commission directed Staff to take the presentation to the Council. 8. OLD BUSINESS 8.1 Discussion of the Planning Commission Work Program. Ann Jamison suggested that at the next meeting Staff provide all the information provided previously for the Planning Commission. The Commission could delinate what projects they would like to look into and forward the list to Council. Chairman Emling questioned the pathway on Mr. Snedigar's house on Purissima Road. Bill Ekern noted it is a 2-B Type pathway, and there was no specific condition regarding separation of the path from the street. Commissioner Pahl noted he had attended an open house by Seville Properties recently and was pleased to find the MDA and MFA information for the property listed on the information sheet provided by the company. MOTION SECONDED AND PASSED: Motion by Pahl, seconded by Carico and passed by consensus to request that Staff write a letter to thank the agent and broker, complimenting them for trying to better inform potential new residents. r)•dU1411 3oz a hli" The meeting was adjourned by consensus at 9:50 p.m. Respectfully submitted, 1/ Laura Johnson Planning Secretary