Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout10/28/1998L► Minutes of a Regular Meeting Approved 12/9/98 Town of Los Altos Hills PLANNING COMMISSION Wednesday, October 28, 1998, 6:30 p.m. Council Chambers, 26379 Fremont Road cc: Cassettes(3)#19-98 ROLL CALL AND PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE The Planning Commission meeting was called to order at 6:40 p.m. in the Council Chambers at Town Hall. Present: Chairman Cheng, Commissioners Gottlieb, Schreiner & Jinkerson Absent: Commissioner Aurelio Staff: Jeff Peterson, City Manager/City Engineer; Curtis Williams, Planning Director; Suzanne Davis, Associate Planner ( Also: Chris Clark, consultant with Crawford, Multari & Clark 2. PRESENTATIONS FROM THE FLOOR -none. 3. PUBLIC HEARINGS 3.1 LANDS OF SHIDELER, 27994 Via Vernon (175-98-ZP-SD); A request for Site Development Permit for a driveway modification (review the September 15, 1998 Planning Director's approval of a Site Development permit). Commissioner Schreiner stepped down from the public hearing as the applicants are endorsing an opponent in the City Council race and she did not want there to be any hint of unfairness. She believed she could be fair, however, felt it would be best not to participate. Staff fielded questions regarding development area, gating the easement and the position of other property owners with rights to the easement. Staff clarified that the development area for the driveway was not counted against the Shidelers or the other owner's development area figures. OPENED PUBLIC HEARING Planning Commission Minutes Approved 12/9/98 October 28, 1998 Page 2 Jay Shideler, 27994 Via Ventana, applicant, summarized the request for a driveway modification and presented reasons why they would like to pave the driveway. He addressed the concerns of the neighbors, believing he had the right to pave the road. He presented a letter from his attorney, Harry Price, addressing use of the easement and supporting Mr. Shideler's contention that he has a right to its use. Ray Capiaux, 27880 Via Ventana, who was also representing two other neighbors (Corbus and Adams) voicing support. He stated that the easement road was used by people in the area as their primary access until 1962 when Via Ventana was built. The Shideler's driveway is paved with pavers which fits in well and are attractive. He addressed the safety issues and drainage problems which are not only the Shidelers as the water comes from above. He supported the completion of the lower easement road with the same appealing character of the existing driveway. Paul Adams, 12608 Via Ventana, agreed with the previous comments. He noted, from a safety perspective, there is a great benefit to having it paved for emergency access. Betsy Bertram, 11854 Page Mill Road, had a similar problem on Central Drive when it was paved to a property about 3/4 of a mile from Page Mill Road. Her understanding was that it is legal because it provides access to a property. Robin Knutson, 27999 Via Ventana, believed that the Shidelers would not drive through the median, however, she was concerned with future property owners. `Basement', "driveway". and "road" seem to be used interchangeably and she would like to make sure that it remains an ingress/egress easement, not a road or driveway. Kathleen Kells, 27990 Via Ventana, stated two-thirds of the proposed driveway was on her property. They had sent a letter of concern in August, 1998. She thought this issue was resolved several years ago. She felt the applicants did not need a second driveway, most of which is on her property. She would prefer that it not be paved. Also, part of the road degradation is due to construction vehicles using the easement. She preferred pavers to cement or asphalt, if it is paved. There is also a privacy issue (back yard) as the driveway is above their property Pavel Curtis, 27990 Via Ventura, felt the right to pave the easement was more relevant when it is the only access to the property, which in this case it is not. He also felt that the driveway is not required to address the drainage issue. Mary Compton, 27855 Via Ventura, stated that the easement was the original access to properties before Via Ventana was built. She mentioned the drainage problem on the driveway off the upper easement road. She would like to see the driveway paved as it would help the mud flow onto the lower Via Ventura. As long as there is a dirt and/or gravel road there, the mud and gravel will run off onto the intersection of Via Ventana and Page Mill Road. She stated that Pearl Abbott was also in support of paving the lower easement. Planning Commission Minutes Approved 12/9/98 October 28, 1998 Page 3 4 Rhonda Abrams, 27500 La Vida Real, voiced support of the project. She felt the applicants have worked with the neighborhood and that they have support of most of them. Jerrell Thomas, 27993 Via Ventana, also speaking for his wife, voiced support of the driveway commenting that the Shidelers have been excellent neighbors. Martin Knutson, 27999 Via Ventana, had never seen the easement in the condition shown in the photos until construction of the two homes (Shideler and Yen) took place. He found it appalling that the road may be paved which is mainly on the Kells, Curtis, and Gilbert (one lot) property, when it is not needed. Viole McMahon, 27975 Via Ventura, felt the road was not needed (this is a special privilege) nor is the driveway needed to improve drainage. The access to the site was discussed extensively when the new residence was discussed. This road which the applicants do not need is not on their property. She further discussed the trees in the median on Via Ventana which obtain their water from run-off, and the entry into Via Ventana which is rural and attractive. She does not support the improvements in this area. Mary Ann McCready, 12105 Oak Park Court, commented that the law states when there is an easement, there is a right to use it. The applicants should be allowed to pave the driveway. Jay Shideler, 27994 Via Ventana Way, applicant, stated that he has worked extensively with 4W Barrie Coate, arborist, noting pavers will not adversely impact the oak trees. When it rains, the road is too muddy and with the steep slope, it cannot be used. He believes that they have the right to use the easement. Easement rights go with the easement and it does not matter whose property the easement is on. The gate has been there since 1950 and a gate will remain to control access. They do not desire a gate, but it is the only way to control access and it is being required. The gate will be an attractive, unobtrusive gate. He is not trying to change the ambiance there, just trying to use the road. Kathleen Kells, stated she has never tried to deny the right of use of the easement. She felt that paving it was not necessary to provide access to the Shideler house and she would prefer it not be paved. CLOSED PUBLIC HEARING The Planning Director clarified he had discussed this with the City Attomey who stated that the Town can require a site development permit since paving is adding impervious surface. Commissioner Gottlieb discussed the original 1996 application review where there was extensive discussion regarding the access from the lower Via Ventana with a 7-0 vote denying the request. She questioned the tuming radius which was answered by the City Engineer who stated the driveway access road is at approximately a 900 angle, which is the same as the driveway going the other direction. Commissioner Gottlieb asked if they have an interpretation from the City Attorney on the right to have access from both the upper and lower easement. The Planning Planning Commission Minutes Approved 12/9/98 October 28, 1998 Page 4 Director stated that the Town has the right to approve or deny the request to pave the driveway. This request is not the same as the original proposal. Commissioner Jinkerson stated they have Med to treat everyone in the Town equally. He did not think they have allowed two accesses to a property before. The letter from Harry Price is from 1996 and is old news. He felt there was no way to enforce ingress only. Paving the easement benefits the Shidelers only and impacts the neighbors below. The easement should be a drainage easement and used to improve drainage in the area. Chairman Cheng supported the request to pave the driveway noting every property in Town is different. This one has a unique situation. The Commission looks at each property when it comes in on its own merits. There may not be another property like it. Commissioner Jinkerson felt they should count the driveway against the development area since it is a secondary access although he does not see the justification for a second driveway. The only difference now is that they will not cross the median. The Planning Commission had voted 7-0 to deny access from lower Via Ventana two years ago. Commissioner Gottlieb was concerned with the legality although she felt the applicants were asking for a special privilege. If there is a legal right to use the easement, they may have to allow paving. She was not sure if they could restrict access to the upper portion of the easement. MOTION SECONDED AND FAILED: Motion by Commissioner Jinkerson and seconded by Commissioner Gottlieb to deny the request to pave a secondary driveway, Lands of Shideler. AYES: Commissioners Gottlieb & Jinkerson NOES: Chairman Cheng ABSENT: Commissioner Aurelio ABSTAIN: Commissioner Schreiner This item will be scheduled for a City Council public hearing agenda for determination of the request for Site Development Permit for a driveway modification due to the 2-1 vote (3-0 vote needed for approval of the motion). Brief break at 8:15 p.m. 3.2 DRAFT CIRCULATION AND SCENIC ROADWAYS ELEMENT OF THE GENERAL PLAN, including proposed policies and implementation measures regarding: maintenance and dedication of private roadways; right-of-way widths; the aesthetic design of roadways; road capacities and traffic levels; regional traffic problems; roadway safety measures; emergency access routes; standards for drainage; reducing impacts of regional traffic; bicycles and other alternate transportation modes; and coordination with the Town's Pathways Element and the pathway network; and proposed Negative Declaration. The Planning Director introduced this item by providing background information. Chris Clark, consultant, from Crawford, Multari & Clark, discussed the public process, the contents of the Element, the Town's goal to maintain rural roadways and maintain the Town's character, incorporating Scenic Roadways into the Circulation Element, the established levels of service, public and private roadways, and right-of-way widths as approximately 50% of the Town's roads Planning Commission Minutes Approved 12/9/98 October 28, 1998 Page 5 4W are private. Regarding private roadways, he suggested two alternatives: Alternative A, the dedication of private roadways to public ownership when requested by affected property owners, when they have been upgraded to current Town standards and where all necessary dedications have been offered by adjacent property owners; and Alternative B, private roads remaining private, except where the Town determines the need to bring into public ownership any "through", or connecting roads. Discussion ensued regarding: identifying specific roads as scenic which gave staff and Planning Commission the ability to require preservation of roadways; public versus private roads; and the funding of road maintenance costs if the Town is ultimately responsible for the maintenance of all Town roadways. OPENED PUBLIC HEARING Robin Robison, 27801 Edgerton Road, discussed her road noting it was part private and part public which was a fact that she was unaware of until a slide occurred four years ago. She would prefer the road be all public as the current status presents problems. She asked for information regarding the process for having the entire road made public. Don Pezzolo, 12215 Colina Drive, was representing the seven homeowners on Colina Drive. He stated that at the time of subdivision, the road was dedicated as public and as far as anyone knew, the road was public. They were surprised to find out that the road is considered private although the subdivision map does not state whether it is public or private. Their position is that the street should be public. If the homeowners want the road to be public and can bring it up to Town standards, they should be allowed to do so. He felt the odds are if a road is private, it will not be maintained. Discussion ensued regarding how to establish whether a road is public or private. Chris Clark suggested adding a policy to address this issue. Les Earnest, 12769 Dianne Drive, felt the Circulation Element was very well written and comprehensive. He made the following observations and suggestions: (1) Arastradero is classified as collector road which is probably a correct classification. However, Council has determined that paths are only required on one side. Arastradero is the only collector road not requiring paths on both sides. (2) Drainage on local roads with no uphill ditch. (3) Stop signs and signals; suggesting round -abouts instead of signals/stop signs. Both entrances to Foothill College would be good locations for round -abouts. 4. Emergency access roads are good escape routes for residents, but many of them are locked. They should all be accessible to pedestrians. (5) The need for some additional emergency access roads and the need of a formal way of reviewing neighborhoods to determine those in the greatest need. (6) Suggested bicycle lockers at Park & Ride lot. (7) Bike lanes and paths; roadside bike paths are not a good idea. He supports connections between roads that shorten distance driven (interconnect neighborhoods). (8) Cars need enough shoulder or paved surface to safely pass cyclists, suggesting establishing tar standards for new roads. Planning Commission Minutes Approved 12/9/98 October 28, 1998 Page 6 Betsy Bertram, 11854 Page Mill Road, suggested widening roads in the uphill direction only to facilitate safe passing of bikes. Bob Stutz, 25310 Elena Road, stated Altamont Road was originally constructed with extra pavement in uphill direction and eventually the center line was moved. Jeanette Foley, 13421 Byrd Lane, supports the acquisition of private roads. CLOSED PUBLIC HEARING The City Engineer summarized the process for having the Town accept a private road as public. Commissioner Jinkerson suggested focusing on roads that are partially public and private first, taking private roads in gradually. The City Engineer clarified that neither alternative would force residents to convert from private to public as this is completely voluntary and would require agreement of all affected property owners. Code states that through streets should be public and the Council has supported this policy. The Planning Director stated the Byrne Preserve can be added to the map of destinations, along with the Park & Ride lot and the Stanford Industrial Park. Regarding road cross sections, the intent was to show that a wider right of way allows for greater separation between development, additional landscaping and maintenance of existing vegetation. ( Round -abouts could be added to the list of traffic calming devices. Commissioner Jinkerson preferred to continue this item until the next meeting before voting to allow additional time to study the document. Commissioner Schreiner would like the word "voluntary" added to private road acquisition/option "A". She felt the Town has a good fiscal policy, but it is limited. Acquiring private roads needs to be done gradually. Robin Robison felt they needed to establish a prioritization system for private roads. Chairman Cheng stated they were making a general decision on whether to change private roads to public. Further study would be needed to determine process and procedures. The City Engineer recognized the two approaches or philosophies which have been presented for consideration. Once one is decided on, they can work on the details. Chris Clark stated implementation can be done through, for example, code amendment. Commissioner Jinkerson suggested adding under "safety", provisions prohibiting signs and mailboxes within pathways, and a language change regarding sidewalks (concrete paths should be considered as sidewalks). MOTION SECONDED AND PASSED: Motion by Commissioner Schreiner and seconded by Commissioner Jinkerson to continue the proposed Circulation and Scenic Roadways Element of the General Plan to the November 11, 1998 Planning Commission meeting. AYES: Chairman Cheng, Commissioners Schreiner, Gottlieb & Jinkerson NOES: None ABSENT: Commissioner Aurelio Planning Commission Minutes Approved 12/9/98 October 28, 1998 Page 7 4W 4. OLD BUSINESS 4.1 Report from subcommittees, none. NEW BUSINESS 5.1 Planning Commission Holiday Schedule (Veterans Day, Thanksgiving and Christmas) Discussion ensued. All were in agreement to change the November 111° meeting to November 10it; and canceling the second meetings in November (11/26/98) and December (12/23/98). 6. REPORT FROM THE CITY COUNCIL MEETING 6.1 Planning Commission Representative for October 21" - Chairman Cheng reported on the following: Blair subdivision; Lands of Nextel; Lands of GTE; and Lands of Lambert. 6.2 Planning Commission Representative for November 4th - Commissioner Gottlieb APPROVAL OF MINUTES 7.1 Approval of the September 23, 1998 minutes PASSED BY CONSENSUS: To approve the September 23, 1998 minutes with a correction to page 5, "Motion by Commissioner Jinkerson, seconded by Commissioner Gottlieb". REPORT FROM THE SITE DEVELOPMENT HEARING OCTOBER 13, 20 & 27 1998 8.1 LANDS OF CARSON, 26315 Esperanza Drive (189-98-ZP-SD); A request for a Site Development Permit for a new carport; additions and remodel of an existing residence. Approved with conditions October 13, 1998 8.2 LANDS OF BUDWORTH, 11000 Magdalena Road (180-98-ZP-SD); A request for a Site Development Permit for a pool and spa. Approved with conditions October 20, 1998. 8.3 LANDS OF LAUTERBACH, 25712 Elena Road (192-98-ZP-SD); A request for a Site Development Permit for a nested antenna. Approved with conditions October 20, 1998. 8.4 LANDS OF TAAFFE, 26854 Purissima Road (186-98-ZP-SD); A request for a Site Development Permit for a pool and spa. Approved with conditions October 20, 1998. Planning Commission Minutes October 28, 1998 Page 8 Approved 12/9/98 8.5 LANDS OF WARE & CATES, 13961 Fremont Pines Lane (201-98-ZP-SD); A request for a Site Development Permit for a driveway modification and landscape screening plan. Approved with conditions October 27, 1998. 8.6 LANDS OF ORTON, 26666 Snell Lane (200-98-ZP-SD); A request for a Site Development Permit for a swimming pool and landscape screening plan. Approved with conditions October 27, 1998. 8.7 LANDS OF ROSE, 25810 Vinedo Lane (194-98-ZP-SD); A request for a Site Development Permit for a driveway modification, and landscape screening plan. Approved with conditions October 27, 1998. 9. ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned by consensus at 11:20 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Suzanne Davis Acting Planning Secretary 4