Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout01/10/2002LL Minutes of a Regular Meeting Approved 2/14/02 \►r Town of Los Altos Hills PLANNING COMMISSION Thursday, January 10, 2002, 7:00 p.m. Council Chambers, 26379 Fremont Road cc: Cassettes(2) #01-02 ROLL CALL AND PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE The regular Planning Commission meeting was called to order at 7:00 p.m. in the Council Chambers at Town Hall. Present: Chairman Wong, Commissioners Gottlieb, Cottrell, Vita & Clow Staff: Carl Cahill, Planning Director; Angelica Herrera, Assistant Planner; Lam Smith, Planning Secretary 2. PRESENTATIONS FROM THE FLOOR -none PASSED BY CONSENSUS: To re -arrange order of hearings as follows: 3.1, California 4/ Department of Transportation -Metro PCS; 3.2, Lands of Carse; 3.3, Height and Setback discussion. 3. PUBLIC HEARINGS 3.1 CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION -METRO PCS, 2350 Old Page Mill Road (205-01-ZP-SD-CUP); A request for a Site Development Permit and Conditional Use Permit for the placement of three (3) flush -mount antennas with a 7 foot extension on an existing pole, and the placement of equipment within an existing telecommunication facility (continued from November 8, 2001). Staff had nothing further to add to the report. Due to safety, Metro PCS was not able to attach a mock-up of the 7 foot extension on the existing pole. Commissioner Gottlieb asked how many more extensions will they be reviewing? She requested, if approved, that this be the last extension allowed. OPENED PUBLIC HEARING Karen McPherson, 7950 Dublin Blvd., Dublin, Metro PCS representative, provided a mock up to illustrate the 7 foot high pole with omni antennas. Metro PCS is a new carrier. They are looking at three areas in Town using a "one rate service'. This area is critical for their coverage. �e CLOSED PUBLIC HEARING Planning Commission Minutes January 10, 2002 Page 2 Commissioner Clow felt the request for no further extensions to the pole was valid and what has been applied for was reasonable. Commissioner Vitu could support a recommendation of approval with no restrictions for an extension as she felt it could be decided at a future time. Commissioner Cottrell felt this was a good and needed location for Metro. Commissioner Gottlieb was concerned with any further extensions although she agreed that the location was good. Chairman Wong also agreed. MOTION SECONDED AND PASSED: Motion by Commissioner Cottrell and seconded by Commissioner Clow to recommend approval to the City Council for a request for a Site Development Permit and Conditional Use Permit for the placement of three (3) flush -mount antennas with a 7 foot extension on an existing pole, and the placement of equipment within an existing telecommunication facility. A recommendation was made that no further extensions are permitted. AYES: Chairman Wong, Commissioners Gottlieb, Vitu, Cottrell & Clow NOES: None This item will be scheduled for a City Council public hearing 3.2 LANDS OF CARSE, 27125 Taaffe Road (266-01-ZP); A request to amend the Pathway Element Master Path Plan of the General Plan. Staff introduced this item stating the applicant is requesting that the Master Path Plan be amended to eliminate the future off road pathway route along the north property boundary parallel with Almaden Court and Taaffe Road. An off road pathway has not yet been constructed at this location. However, the Town does hold a pedestrian easement along the Carse's northern property boundary as shown on the diagram prepared by the applicant. The applicant's feel this off road pathway is not necessary as there are other pathways in the vicinity that could serve the same route. The easement is not the question; it is whether or not the Path Plan should be amended to elintinate this route (a recommendation to the City Council). The Planning Director had spoken to the City Attorney regarding the Master Path Plan and the resolutions passed in 1981 which did not include the adoption of this Plan. She stated that even if the pathway plan was not adopted by resolution, if the Pathway Element was adopted (March 20, 1996) and it refers to the Master Path Plan, this is sufficient. The Planning Commission received correspondence from Amy Pearl (supports pathways), the Pathway Committee recommendation, and a draft resolution provided by Commissioner Clow. OPENED PUBLIC HEARING Sandy Carse, 27125 Taaffe Road, applicant, stated the pathway issue has been with them since the house was built in 1989. She provided the history of the request to have the pathway ILV. rescinded. In 1997, she attended the City Council meeting at which time a pathway on Amherst Court and Liddicoat Circle was to be discussed. Due to neighborhood opposition, the pathway was rescinded from the Master Plan. During that same year another area was being reviewed. A Planning Commission Minutes January 10, 2002 Page 3 complete petition was signed by all the residents on the Taaffe Road and Almaden Court area who also objected to the proposed path. She further discussed another City Council meeting discussing the proposed path along Central Drive and Red Rock Road area whose residents were so incensed by the off-road pathways in their area they dominated the meeting. No one knows today how many easements are enforced. She returned to the City Council again in 1998 asking to be agendized to discuss this issue one more time. She was told she could not be agendized. Now, she is asking again for the path to be rescinded. 100% of the residents are asking for the pathway not to be constructed. She is asking for the removal of the pathway and to change the Master Path Plan. She further discussed safety, privacy, fairness as this is not an on -road path and causes redundancy. There are paths on Taaffe Road, Altamont Road, Black Mountain Road, Almaden Court and Elena Road. She asked for consideration to change the Master Path Plan as they have done for other residents in the past, rescinding the path and easement. Beverly Bryant, 27060 Appaloosa Way, voiced support for the pathway system Nancy Ewald, Pathways Committee, provided the Commission with a map of the area indicating easements, roadside paths, off road paths in use, and off road path easements held. The committee met on Monday to discuss this project after walking the site on Sunday. At the meeting it was not known what other existing easements are along the creek, past the Carse rear property line. The recommendations provided were made without the knowledge of existing easements. The committee would require another meeting prior to making another recommendation on this request. She noted that the easements were originally taken in the 1980's. Speaking as a resident, she felt the pathways bring people together and they are useful for emergency access. As a user of the pathway system, it provides a beautiful environment. Bob Stutz, 25310 Elena Road, Pathway Committee, discussed the reasons and benefits for off- road paths and fire safety. Bill Bryant 27060 Appaloosa Way, discussed the traffic on Altamont Road. The central path is car free and silent. He would like to see potential pathways available. He asked that the land is kept available. Carol Petty, 26932 Almaden Court, her property line backs up to the Carse's property. She is hoping to abandon her path also. There is a path down the front of her house, a path on Altamont Road and on Taaffe Road. The property in question effects approximately 12 residents and is basically a short cut through her property in the back. Currently there are no fences but if there will be people coming through her area she will build a fence. There are other ways to go up to Byrne Park, etc. and not go right through the back of her yard. She also petitioned neighbors on Almaden Court regarding pathways and 100% of her neighbors objected to the pathway based on safety and privacy. The concept of pathways is fine but she objected to the way the Town takes them. Pathways should be voluntary and there are cases where pathways have been removed. Property owners have rights. Cringer Summit, 13390 Lennox Way, felt pathways have not been a security issue. The Master Path concept is to get from point A to point B and enjoy the beauty of the area. When and if the pathway is built is not known. She asked they not give away Town capital. Planning Commission Minutes January 10, 2002 Page 4 Sandy Humphries, Environmental Design Committee, stated the area is a huge wildlife creek corridor area. Should this easement be abandoned, she would request that a wildlife corridor remain open. There needs to be a way for wildlife to connect from one conservation easement to another across the town. More and more people are fencing their properties. Speaking as a resident, she discussed the easement given at the time of subdivision. The roads were originally configured to allow for a healthier and safer community. Nancy Ewald, Pathways Committee, clarified points regarding the committee recommendations: (1) No path construction will occur on the off-road path easement, as requested by the resident petition, until such time as all connecting easements are in place and the entire Master path Plan has been reviewed and this path segment exists on the updated Master Plan. (2) Delay decision to amend the Carse off-road path easement from the Master Path Plan of the General Plan, until further information can be obtained on the adjacent off-road path casements along the creek at the rear property boundary. She was concerned if this pathway was eliminated, it would create a domino effect to all the other residents that back up to the creek area and/or other areas. Carol Petty reiterated the fact that they are surrounded by pathways. This particular pathway is a short cut through her property. She will fence her property if the pathway goes in, for security reasons. Currently, there are no fences by the creek area. Gregg Carse, 27125 Taaffe Road, applicant, stated they were not given the option of having the easement or not. If they wanted to develop the land, they had to give the easement. There is beautiful wildlife for all the neighbors to enjoy. As soon as people start wondering on the land, their scent drives the wildlife away. He objected to the pathway for two reasons: (1) it is not needed, and (2) they all love the wildlife and if a pathway goes in they will all disappear. If a pathway goes in, he will fence the entire length of his property. Sandy Carse, clarified issues presented by Sandy Humphries. She did not understand how taking away an easement would effect the wildlife. She has lived there for 13 years. What changes wildlife is man. It was noted that the resolution accepting a certain pathway and trail easement, and conservation easement was dated March 17, 1986. CLOSED PUBLIC HEARING Commissioner Cottrell felt there was two issues: the pathway and the easement. The dedication of an easement is permanent. He would be opposed to the pathway being built now or in the foreseeable future. There are other ways to get around. Commissioner Clow disclosed he had spoken to Jan Fenwick, Nancy Ewald, Bob Stutz, Scott Vanderlip and other pathway committee members, Maureen Cassingham, Pat Dowd, and communicated by e-mail with Toni Casey, Carl Cahill, and Sandy Sloan about this item. Although he Med twice, he did not connect with the applicants. To evaluate this application, he had read copies of the Pathway Element and the Master Path Plan. He did not feel either should be amended. Rather, he proposed Findings and a Draft Resolution. He showed a copy to Toni Casey who felt the reasoning was very sound and expected it would pass both the Planning Commission and the City Council. The Brown Act prevented him from sharing the document prior to the meeting. n Planning Commission Minutes January 10, 2002 Page 5 He reviewed the Draft Resolution with reference to the proposed pathway abandonment on Lands of Carse, quoting the Pathway Element as follows. (changes that were made after discussion are noted as either a suike through or in bold) Given that the purposes of off-road paths as listed in the Pathway Element are, first, "Off-road paths provide links between adjacent neighborhoods and schools for pedestrians, bicyclists and pedestrians," FINDING 1: The pathway easement in question does not link adjacent neighborhoods or schools. Second, "The Town's street system is designed to minimize the intrusion of the car into and through the Town, and cul-de-sacs are therefore common. This configuration can make it difficult to travel to nearby neighborhoods using Town roads. Off-road paths overcome this limitation by connecting neighborhoods for pedestrians and other pathway users." FINDING 2: The pathway easement in question does not connect cul-de-sacs Third, "In addition to providing access to nearby destinations, paths provide a place to exercise, to walk dogs, or to ride horses. The primary users and beneficiaries of most of these paths are local residents." ow FINDING 3: The Planning Commission finds that the majority of local residents (people within easy walking distance of the proposed path) do not believe that the benefits of the proposed off- road path outweigh the casts benefits. FINDING 4: Since the Pathway Element is silent on criteria for pathway easement abandonment, the Planning Commission interprets the Pathway Element to mean that the above purposes for off-road pathways form the basis for the Town's requirement of them and that any proposed path not meeting these purposes is not required and easements for it may be abandoned upon application for abandonment by the property owner. The Pathway Element further states that "The Master Path Plan shall consist of all of the following:... A map to be developed by the Pathways Committee and approved by the City Council showing future needed off-road paths. Such a map, upon adoption, will identify class 3 [planned future] paths. Off-road paths shown on the Master Path Plan of 1981 shall remain in effect until the City Council adopts a new map, but all future paths designated by the 1981 Plan, without existing easements, shall be critically evaluated relative to function, slope, and other constraints prior to adoption of the new map." FINDING 5: The Pathway Element states that off-road paths with existing easements shown on the "Master Path Plan of 1981" map, which may or may not be the undated "Master Path Plan" map referenced by staff, remain in effect and those without existing easements on the "Master E Path Plan of 1981" map would be critically evaluated for approval by the council. Staff has 4/ looked for any such Council approval and has concluded that no evidence of such an approval can be found. So if all easements required for the path were not in effect by 1981, the path Planning Commission Minutes January 10, 2002 Page 6 would not have remained in effect under the Pathway Element and no easements for the unapproved path would be required under the above language in the Pathway Element. Under this standard, the pathway easement in question is not required under the above language in the Pathway Element. RESOLVED: Since the pathway under discussion does not meet any of the purposes of off-road paths enumerated in the Pathway Element, does not fall under the "1981 existing easements' language of the Pathway Element, and the homeowner wishes to abandon it, the Planning Commission appreves recommends amending the Pathway Map to remove this section and n......oval of the n... neil of the appl:,..._J.. -..... est to ..bander the pathway ......,.meet an thei . Discussion ensued. Commissioner Vita was in support of amending the Master Plan to remove this easement. It was redundant and agreed with the privacy issues mentioned by the applicants and there is not neighborhood support. She felt the applicant made a good point concerning the wildlife being more protected without the pathway. She can support an amendment to the General Plan. The Planning Director clarified that the abandonment of the easement would take a summary vacation. The issue this evening is the pathway. Commissioner Gottlieb felt that Commissioners should not have their minds made up prior to the meeting. She discussed the Draft Resolution as presented by Commission Clow, the history of the pathways, and the difficulty of building the path (very steep). The wildlife corridor should be maintained although she did not see a constructed pathway. She would not want fences in the area. She asked that the Master Path Plan be maintained. She did not agree with giving up easements as they provide a wildlife corridor, restrict fencing, and provides emergency access in case of fire. She further discussed the history of the Master Path Plan. Easements should not be abandoned until the Master Path Plan has been updated. Chairman Wong felt off-road paths should be voluntary. He discussed property rights, safety and off-road pathways. Commissioner Clow discussed amendments to the Draft Resolution: delete finding #6; and changes to 'RESOLVED" section. He felt the resolution only deals with amending the pathway map and making a recommendation that in the future the easement might be removed. It was suggested removing the reference to "easement' and only refer to the removal of the path. Commissioner Gottlieb felt this does not fall under the 1981 existing easement language of the Pathway Element. She disagreed with the findings regarding the pathway easement in question not linking cul-de-sacs. She is not recommending construction or use of the easement. She is saying do it legally. She recommended, under 'Resolved", striking "does not fall under the "1981 existing easements" language of the Pathway Element, Under Finding #3, questioned the word "costs" asking for clarification. 4W Commissioner Vitu stated that on Finding 2, she can find that it does not connect cul-de-sacs. On Finding 5, she would like to hear Commissioner Clow explanation as she is not certain it is Planning Commission Minutes January 10, 2002 Page 7 legal or if they even need that finding. Commissioner Cottrell questioned if all the findings were necessary or if the motion itself would be sufficient. Commission Clow discussed the cul-de-sac issue and the finding being appropriate. He felt all of the findings were appropriate. He suggested changing "cost" to "benefits" on finding #3. MOTION SECONDED AND PASSED: Motion by Commissioner Clow and seconded by Commissioner Cottrell to recommend to the City Council the removal of this section of pathway from the Master Path Plan (including the findings), with changes made to Resolution as indicated in bold. AYES: Chairman Wong, Commissioners Cottrell, Clow & Vitu NOES: Commissioner Gottlieb This item will be scheduled for a City Council agenda. Brief break at 8:55 p.m. 3.3 PROPOSED OPTIONS FOR MODIFYING TOWN HEIGHT AND SETBACK ORDINANCES TO PROMOTE ARCHITECTURAL DNERSITY AND ADJUSTABLE SETBACKS FOR LARGER OR TALLER HOMES (continued 6 from December 13, 2001). The Planning Director introduced this item noting the discussion from the previous Commission meeting. Bill Maston and Walter Chapman have been providing research and schematic examples of ways to enhance/change the height and setback ordinances. For ease in review and examples, the Commission, staff and architects moved to the lower table for discussion. OPENED PUBLIC HEARING Mr. Maston provided information regarding the concerns raised by the Commission regarding increased minimum setbacks and maximum heights as reviewed at the December IP meeting, as follows: 1. Would the encouraged use of dormers create off-site lighting concerns (additional lighting created by dormer windows). 2. Would these proposed changes encourage a three story look, or allow the creation of three story elements (not including basement). 3. If the increased maximum building height is allowed, additional language requiring approval contingent upon preservation of views that might be effected by increased height. 4. Perhaps language that would not make the increased maximum building height automatic but more contingent upon the benefits of the proposed architecture, preservation of views, Ce etc. Planning Commission Minutes January 10, 2002 Page 8 5. Concerns were raised over the idea that the increased maximum building heights would encourage applicants to build in the center of their lots rather than what might be most advantageous from a site planning standpoint. 6. Questions raised as to whether modifications of the increased setbacks might encourage even more diversity and eliminate the concern of centering structures on sites. 7. Make sure the slope height adjustments do not allow increases beyond current proposed maximum if slope is downhill rather than uphill. Open discussion ensued regarding the above assessment from the previous meeting which included the following: dormers; roof pitch; bigger building with smaller masses; not allowing flat roof structures higher than 27 feet; amount of house controlled by the Town formula; no 27 foot continuous walls; reduce wall heights; ceiling heights; view corridors; stepping of houses; and minimum dimensions to use rule. It was suggested that any changes made to the ordinances could be subject to a one year review process by the Planning Commission to make sure they were getting what was intended. Mr. Maston summarized points discussed stating they will provide the Commission with an overview of items discussed to review at the February 14, 2002 meeting with the intent of providing the City Council with a Progress Report regarding building heights and setbacks for review. CLOSED PUBLIC HEARING PASSED BY CONSENSUS: To continue the discussion to the February 14, 2002 meeting. At that time a "Progress Report" will be reviewed and sent on to the City Council for review. 4. OLD BUSINESS 4.1 Report from subcommittees - none 5. NEW BUSINESS -none 6. REPORT FROM THE CITY COUNCIL MEETING 6.1 Planning Commission Representative for January 3rd, Commissioner Gottlieb, reported on the following items: Lands of Harpoothan & Price; LUF Committee; review of Town Hall project; and Ravensbury Action Committee for the City Council to approve a resolution initiating the annexation of Ravensbury Avenue. 6.2 Planning Commission Representative for January 17' — Commissioner Wong 6.3 Planning Commission Representative for February 7" — Commissioner Vitu 7. APPROVAL OF MINUTES 7.1 Approval of the December 13, 2001 minutes 4 PASSED BY CONSENSUS: To approve the December 13, 2001 minutes. Planning Commission Minutes January 10, 2002 Page 9 8. REPORT FROM THE FAST TRACK MEETING- DECEMBER 18 2001 AND JANUARY 8.2002 8.1 LANDS OF MORGAN, 12728 La Cresta Drive (211-01-ZP-SD-GD); A request for a Site Development Permit for a new residence. Approved with conditions. 8.2 LANDS OF CANTELE, 24098 Princess Elleena Court (11-01-ZP-SD-GD); A request for a Site Development Permit for a detached garage and recreation room. Approved with conditions. 8.3 LANDS OF CAREY, 25621 Deerfield Drive (157-01-ZP-SD-GD); A request for a Site Development Permit for a new residence and pool. Continued to January 15, 2002. 9. REPORT FROM STPE DEVELOPMENT MEETING—JANUARY 8, 2002 9.1 LANDS OF VELLEQUETTE, 13944 Fremont Pines Lane (280-01-ZP-SD); A request for a Site Development Permit for a landscape screening plan. Approved with conditions. 10. ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned by consensus at 10:30 p.m. Respectfully submitted, La t Planning Secretary lq