Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout02/14/2002f Minutes of a Regular Meeting Approved 3114/02 Town of Los Altos Hills PLANNING COMMISSION Thursday, February 14, 2002, 7:00 p.m. Council Chambers, 26379 Fremont Road cc: Cassettes (3) #02-02 ROLL CALL AND PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE The Planning Commission regular meeting was called to order at 7:00 p.m. in the Council Chambers at Town Hall. Present: Chairman Wong, Commissioners Clow, Cottrell, Gottlieb & Vita Staff: Carl Cahill, Planning Director; Angelica Herrera, Assistant Planner; Suzanne Davis, Acting Planning Secretary 2. PRESENTATIONS FROM THE FLOOR -none 3. PUBLIC HEARINGS 3.1. LANDS OF THURSTON, 27857 Moody Road (285-01-ZP-SD-VAR); A request for a Site Development Permit for a 255 square foot addition (maximum height 13 feet), and a variance to encroach into setback. Angelica Herrera gave a brief staff report. She noted that the development area will not be increased and that the degree of nonconformity will not be increased with the project. Commissioner Clow said that he lives within 500 feet of the subject property, and he excused himself from this item. Chairman Wong reviewed the new Public Hearing Policy for people wishing to address the Commission. The Public Hearing was opened. Randy Grange, TRG Architects, and Carol Thurston, applicant, were available to answer questions. Commissioner Wong stated that he had met with the applicant. Commissioner Gottlieb stated that she had also met with the applicant. Planning Commission Minutes Approved 3/14/02 February 14, 2002 Page 2 4W Mr. Grange said that due to the existing siting this is the only logical place to expand the house. It will not make the existing condition any worse than it already is. The Public Hearing was closed Commissioner Cottrell said that looking at the property, it is unusual. The addition is minor and he did not see any other location where the house could be expanded. He can make the findings for the variance. Commissioner Gottlieb said that staff did an excellent job. The findings should include more rationale to support the variance. The topography of the lot supports the variance. She suggested adding wording to state that the addition will be in the same area that is already covered. This could be added to finding #1 to strengthen it. Commissioner Vim said she agreed with her fellow Commissioners. The addition is not encroaching any further into the setback that the existing home. She agreed with Commissioner Gottlieb on the language for finding #1. Chairman Wong said that the Commission would be granting something that will help the applicant while not impacting anyone else. MOTION SECONDED AND PASSED: Motion by Commissioner Vitu and seconded by Commissioner Gottlieb to approve the variance application with a change to finding #1 to include that the new addition to the residence is covering existing developed area that is already in the setback. AYES: Chairman Wong, Commissioners Cottrell, Vitu, & Gottlieb NOES: None This item is subject to a 22 day appeal period. 3.2 LANDS OF POOR CLARES, 28210 Natoma Road (269-01-ZP-SD-GD- CUP); A request for a Site Development Permit for a 12,750 square foot addition (maximum height 27 feet), and a Conditional Use Permit for an existing monastery. Ms. Herrera gave the staff report. She noted that there are revised conditions for the use permit attached to the report. The public hearing was opened. 4 Planning Commission Minutes Approved 3/14/02 February 14, 2002 Page 3 fur Sal Caruso, 1475 Washington Street, Santa Clara, the project architect, thanked staff. Everyone has been kind, considerate and helpful. He said that the condition requiring a Type IIB path to be installed along Natoma Road is a concern because Poor Clare's subsists on alms. The addition will be entirely funded by donations. It is an undue burden financially. There are no revenues to construct a pathway around the property perimeter, probably $100,000. The project reduces the overall scale and mass from what is there. The square footage is being reduced by over 5,000 square feet. Commissioner Cottrell said he believes the path is required only on Natoma and not on the entire frontage. Mr. Caruso answered that the Natoma Road frontage is quite lengthy. Chairman Wong asked if there were any cost estimates for the path? Mr. Caruso said that he estimated $100 to $150,000. It is approximately 1/2 mile from one end of Natoma to the other end of the property. Commissioner Vitu asked about the storage shed located on the property line and whether it will be removed. Mr. Caruso said the shed will be removed and replaced with a new storage building. Commissioner Vitu asked if a permit had been issued for the existing shed. Mr. Caruso said that it pre -dates the sisters occupying the property. Marge Mueller, 27860 Via Corita said there is a storage building that was built 10 to 12 years ago and people are living in it. This would be a good time to bring it into compliance. Mr. Cahill said that the building that Mrs. Mueller is referring to is a studio, and it is not owned by the applicant. The Building Official recalls that it was built with a permit and it includes plumbing. He suggested that the Muellers contact staff to go over their concern. The studio is on a separate lot and has been under the same ownership for at least 10 years. Dan Alexander, 27200 Elena Road, said his property backs up to Poor Clues. He supports the project. A path shouldn't be required. There is already one on the opposite side of the road. Nancy Ewald, Co -Chair Pathway Committee, said there is a path on the opposite side of the road but it is just dirt (native) and gets muddy in the winter. The Pathway Committee recommends that a path be installed and that it meander around the existing trees. She suggested that if there is a financial issue, perhaps volunteers can help construct it. It is a very popular path for equestrians and walkers. She feels the Pathway Committee can get volunteers to help. Planning Commission Minutes Approved 3/14/02 February 14, 2002 Page 4 4 Mark Powers, 10820 Green Hills Court, said he knows of no streets that have paths on both sides. When there is an existing path, one shouldn't be required. It would be unfair to ask them to pave a path because there is one on the other side of the street. Dot Schreiner, 14301 Saddle Mountain Road, said there is a list of roads where paths are required on both sides. The Town does have an obligation when development takes place to require infrastructure to be upgraded. Rick McCauley, 27051 Elena Road, said there is a path on both sides of Elena where he lives. It would be a good idea to have staff look at this further before a decision is made. He doesn't want to impose on Poor Claves because they have been good neighbors. If the Pathway Committee can get volunteers, he is willing to help put the path in. He noted that in some areas the path is quite narrow (approximately three to four feet wide). Nancy Ewald clarified that there is not a path along part of the Natoma in the Poor Clares area. Commissioner Cottrell asked if the path is in the right-of-way. Ms. Ewald said she is not positive about that. Where the existing path is, probably about half of it is in the right-of- way. Sal Caruso said he measured the plan and it is about 1,700 to 1,750 linear feet, and the terrain goes up and down quite a bit. He reiterated that it is a financial burden on Poor Clares. Commissioner Clow clarified that the project is being done to repair or replace a structure in need. It is essentially an emergency repair. The Public Hearing was closed. Commissioner Cottrell asked if there is any mechanism to have the path put in voluntarily. Mr. Cahill said that a condition could be included requiring Poor Clares to work with the community. It can be revisited if they aren't able to build the path. Commissioner Cottrell said he heard Jim Rasp say paths cost $60 per lineal foot. Mr. Cahill said that the cost is significantly less for a private party. Material costs for a path would be for the quarry crusher fines and wood header boards. Commissioner Vitu said she has no issues with the proposed development. She wondered if there could be some sort of compromise on the path. Commissioner Clow agreed. The applicant can provide the materials and the Pathway Committee can provide the labor. 4/ Commissioner Cottrell agreed. Planning Commission Minutes Approved 3/14/02 February 14, 2002 Page 5 4W Commissioner Gottlieb said the Town has funds for paths and perhaps some of the funding could come from that. Chairman Wong noted that the Commission was in agreement, and just needed to work out a condition. Mr. Cahill suggested a condition stating that the applicant shall be responsible for providing the materials and shalt work with the Pathway Committee to obtain volunteer labor. The applicant shall return to the Commission if unable to fulfill the condition. Chairman Wong said if the volunteer effort doesn't work out the applicant should be released from the requirement. MOTION SECONDED AND PASSED: Motion by Commissioner Cottrell and seconded by Commissioner Vitu to approve the application with an added condition stating that the applicant shall be responsible for providing materials for the Type IIB pathway. Construction shall be done through volunteer efforts, working with the Pathway Committee. If the path is not completed by the time of final inspection, it will no longer be required. The motion passed unanimously. AYES: Chairman Wong, Commissioners Cottrell, Vitu, Gottlieb & Clow NOES: None This item will be forwarded to the Council with the Commission's recommendation. 3.3 LANDS OF CROWN CASTLE/METRO PCS, 27400 Purissima Road (230 -01 -SD -CUP); A request for a Site Development Permit and Conditional Use Permit for the location of a 55 -foot monopole, and 10 equipment cabinets at an existing telecommunication facility (continued from December 13, 2001 at the applicant's request). Mr. Cahill gave the staff report. He noted that the proposed telecommunications facility will be located on a Town owned property. The applicant made the effort to co -locate with AT&T, but AT&T pulled out at the last minute. The applicant is now requesting to construct a separate 55 foot high monopole or artificial tree. Commissioner Gottlieb asked how much more this small site can take. Mr. Cahill said it is a Town owned property and the Commission could recommend to the Council that this be the last facility or antenna allowed. The Public Hearing was opened. LJ Planning Commission Minutes Approved 3/14/02 February 14, 2002 Page 6 4 Andrew Ratner, 7950 Dublin Blvd., Suite 106, representing Metro PCS, provided background about the company. Typically they will co -locate or place antennas on PG&E towers. The intent was to co -locate here until AT&T denied that request. He showed enlarged photos showing the pole and tree pole in the proposed location. Metro PCS will be providing a service to the community. Ravi Ganesan, 27080 Purissima Road, said he has some concerns about the pole. Currently his approach road comes off Minorca Court. However, a neighboring project will cut off his access and he will need to construct a new approach road (driveway) and will have to drive by the antenna every day. He would prefer that the pole be located elsewhere. Mr. Ratner explained that the existing pole is higher than what is proposed. The Public Hearing was closed. Commissioner Clow stated that he supports the application. Commissioner Vitu said she also supports the application. She asked for clarification on where the concerned neighbor lives in relation to the project site. The proposed pole will be lower than the existing. Commissioner Cottrell acknowledged a letter received by the Commission. Commissioner Gottlieb said she supports the application. She did not think screening would help the neighbor. MOTION SECONDED AND PASSED: Motion by Commissioner Clow and seconded by Commissioner Vim to approve the application with an added condition that staff will evaluate the need for screening on the project site. The motion passed unanimously. AYES: Chairman Wong, Commissioners Cottrell, Vitu, Clow & Gottlieb NOES: None This item will be forwarded to the Council with the Commission's recommendation 3.4 MUNICIPAL CODE & POLICY REVIEW COMMITTEE PRESENTATION AND RECOMMENDATIONS ON CONSERVATION EASEMENTS, DRIVEWAYS, AND FENCES. Evan Wythe, Chair of the Municipal Code & Policy Review Committee, made a presentation summarizing the Committee's conclusions and recommendations. The mission of the Committee is to bring consistency and clarity to the Town Code. The General Plan was reviewed as they went along and the entire Code was reviewed. He discussed the unresolved issues and developed recommendations for conservation Planning Commission Minutes February 14, 2002 Page 7 Approved 3/14/02 6W easements. Information was pulled together from the General Plan, design guidelines and any written policies. For conservation easements the main question is whether they are needed, and if so, under what conditions. He then talked about fences, the recommendation being to add a new section be added to the Code. Issues of height, color and setbacks need clarification. Exterior color restrictions should be incorporated into the Code, and any fencing types that will be prohibited. Outdoor lighting policies should be modified to address lighting in setbacks and uplighting of trees and vegetation. The last topic was driveways. Issues include driveway entrance location, width, slope and double - access driveways. The Commissioners asked questions to clarify comments made during the presentation. 4 Planning Commission Minutes Approved 3/14/02 February 14, 2002 ` Page 8 M Carl Cahill asked that the discussion tonight be limited to conservation easements, driveways and fences. The exterior color and lighting topics were not advertised, and will need to be discussed at a future meeting. He advised the Commission on two options: (1) discuss items and forward to Council; or (2) direct staff to make any changes to the proposed Code amendments, and suggested that the Commission forward comments directly to the Council. The Public Hearing was opened. Dot Schreiner, 14301 Saddle Mountain Drive, addressed conservation easements. She noted that there was little mention of the General Plan in the presentation. The Open Space, Recreation and Conservation Elements all include language supporting conservation easements. She read excerpts from the General Plan and stated that it is very clear that there is a definite mandate to require dedications to preserve the community. If conservation easements are not going to be required, the General Plan will need to be amended. Environmental review may also be necessary. Sandy Humphries, Environmental Design Committee, said that the importance of conservation easements is to preserve trees and hillsides that make up the watershed. Conservation easements are used to protect important trees. The open fencing policy is to allow wildlife movement. Nancy Ewald, 26311 Altadena, questioned removing conservation easement provisions from the ordinance. Evan Wythe said the issues that have been presented are valid. What needs to be done is to solidify the regulations and to have them in the Code. One concern is the current regulations are sometimes spotty. Commissioner Gottlieb asked if it would be better to connect easements rather than have them separated. Mr. Wythe answered no, because it might overly restrict useful land. Commissioner Vitu asked if the Committee had considered the General Plan. Mr. Wythe said yes, one member was responsible for reading the General Plan. Mr. Cahill said that the two elements that speak most clearly to conservation easements are the Conservation and Land Use Elements. There is a heritage tree ordinance, but it is relatively toothless. Keeping the conservation easement policy for preservation of oak trees provides additional protection. Riparian corridors should also be protected. The Public Hearing was closed. CONSERVATION EASEMENTS: 4 Planning Commission Minutes Approved 3/14/02 February 14, 2002 Page 9 Lr Commissioner Clow liked most of the recommendations. He supported the revised language on conservation easements. Commissioner Vito said she likes the protection of waterways. It needs to be clarified or better defined. Mr. Cahill said staff can identify creeks in Town, and all blue lines from USGS maps should be included. Commissioner Vim questioned whether 30% slope was the right number. She pointed out that a 30% slope is different than a 30 degree slope. A 30% slope is equal to only 13.5 degrees of angulations. She said that building on 30% slopes could be controlled through grading policies and suggested that the need for conservation easements as a method of landscape control was more appropriate for slopes of 40% or greater. Commissioner Gottlieb said grading has never been tied -in to protection of slopes. The grading policy would need to be much more restrictive to accomplish this. She would like to keep the 30% slope threshold and look at exceptions on a case-by-case basis. Conservation easements allow landscaping to be controlled. Vineyards may be appropriate in a conservation easement depending on the location. She noted that Mid -Peninsula Regional Open Space District requires trails to be 10%. Commissioner Cottrell said that 30% is a good starting point, but the deciding body should have the flexibility to deviate from this standard. Commissioner Wong said that the Commission's recommendation should be forwarded to the Council and they can comment back. Commissioner Gottlieb pointed out that the Planning Commission can allow specific uses in a conservation easement. MOTION SECONDED AND FAILED: Motion by Commissioner Gottlieb and seconded by Commissioner Cottrell that conservation easements should be required on slopes of 30% or greater. I,andscaping/planting can be allowed as approved by the Commission or Council. Waterways shall include bluelines shown on USGS maps. Keep the existing wording in Section 9.1.214(b) and add language for oak tree preservation. This language should also be included in the Site Development Ordinance. Motion failed 2-3. AYES: Commissioners Cottrell & Gottlieb NOES: Chairman Wong, Commissioners Vitu & Clow MOTION SECONDED AND PASSED: Motion by Commissioner Clow and seconded by Commissioner Vito to include the same wording, substituting 40% for 30% for conservation easements. AYES: Chairman Wong, Commissioners Vitu & Clow NOES: Commissioners Cottrell & Gottlieb DRIVEWAYS: Planning Commission Minutes Approved 3/14/02 February 14, 2002 Page 10 4W Commissioner Clow said that the Fire Department criteria for width, clearance and slope should be the regulators. He wants to leave in the language about driveways not be obtrusive. Commissioner Vita said she agrees with the Committee's recommendations. Commissioner Cottrell said the Town should be the authority, not the County. Mr. Cahill noted that the minimum width the Fire Department will accept is 10 feet paved with a shoulder so they can exit. MOTION SECONDED AND PASSED: Motion by Commissioner Cottrell, seconded by Commissioner Vitu, to accept the recommendations of the Committee on driveway entrance location, width of pavement to be 12 feet of pavement with a maximum slope of 20%, with a proviso that sections exceeding 15% not exceed 300 feet. The motion passed 3to2. AYES: Chairman Wong, Commissioners Cottrell & Vitu NOES: Commissioners Clow & Gottlieb FENCES: The Commission discussed the Committee's recommendations. The consensus is that there are not problems with the tennis court fencing provisions, so no changes are needed to this specific subsection. Commissioner Clow said the regulations for fences outside setbacks are not needed. Commissioner Gottlieb expressed concern about fencing higher than six feet and what they look like. She suggested establishing guidelines for deer fencing. Commissioner Vita agreed that fences outside setbacks don't need to be regulated. Barbed wire is sometimes necessary and should be allowed for livestock operations. Color restriction for fences should only apply when they are highly visible. Commissioner Gottlieb said that solid fences are a concern in some locations. MOTION SECONDED AND PASSED: Motion by Commissioner Vitu, seconded by Commissioner Clow, to accept the Committee's recommendations with the following changes: (1) allow barbed wire fencing for livestock operations; (2) color restrictions should apply only to fences that are highly visible; (3) strike out section B on walls; and (4) deer fencing shall comply to height and setback regulations. AYES: Chairman Wong, Commissioners Cottrell, Vita, Clow & Gottlieb NOES: Commissioners Cottrell & Gottlieb This item will be forwarded to the Council for consideration at a noticed public hearing 4. OLD BUSINESS 4 4.1 Report from subcommittees - none Planning Commission Minutes Approved 3/14/02 February 14, 2002 Page 11 l46V 5. NEW BUSINESS 5.1 Lot Unit Factor Committee report John Harpoothan, 26435 Anacapa Drive, briefly described the background of how the LUF Committee was formed. The recommendation of the Committee is to research and provide analysis on projects that have been approved by the Planning Commission over the past few years to arrive at an appropriate MDA for sloped conforming lots. A statement from John Harpoothan and Jim Abraham dated February 14, 2002 was read into the record. The Site Development Ordinance Committee report of January 3, 2002 was presented. The recommendations are to: (1) retain the current height and setback requirements, but allow additional height with increased setback and architectural constraints on areas with flat surfaces to mitigate bulk; (2) require additional setback as volume and/or building footprints increase; (3) modify grading ordinances to allow for greater cut and fill if engineering and architectural considerations dictate; (4) limit the height of non-native landscaping and provide for effective enforcement; (5) consider the use of a consulting architect; and (6) revise the MDA and MFA limits. Art Lackenbruch has provided information on slope range and occurrence. A report from Mr. Lackenbruch is forthcoming. Commissioner Gottlieb would like to see numbers (case studies) for prior to the May 17, 2001 ordinance. Commissioner Vita questioned John Harpoothan as to why the suggested numbers took away a greater percentage (7%) of development area as the slope changed from 10-15% and a lesser percentage (3%) of development for subsequent 5% increases in slope. She said the slope penalty should be applied uniformly as slope increases. PUBLIC COMMENTS: Evan Wythe, 13038 Moon Lane, said for the penalty for an increase in slope the curve is inverted the wrong way. One should be losing more as the lot gets steeper instead of the other way around. Dot Schreiner confirmed that her letter rebutting the report to the Council had been received by the Commission. She said the survey of residents revealed that most people feel the current numbers are about right and the size of homes should be reduced as the slope increases/becomes more steep. She believes that an EIR is necessary to make the proposed changes. Jim Abraham, 13821 Viscaino Road, thanked everyone on the LUF Committee for all of the work they did, especially John Harpootlian. He summarized the rationale for the recommendations that have been made. %r The Commission agreed to review the information submitted by the LUF Committee. b Planning Commission Minutes February 14, 2002 Page 12 Commissioner Wong would like to set a public hearing on this matter. Approved 3/14/02 Commissioner Gottlieb would like to see a comparison of proposed numbers applied to some plans that have been reviewed by the Commission to get a better understanding (case studies). Commissioner Vitu said she supports what the Committee is trying to do (i.e., reduce the penalty for slope on steep lots) as the LUF Committee's April report clearly showed drainage and erosion concerns could be mitigated with proper engineering. 6. REPORT FROM THE CITY COUNCIL MEETING 6.1 Planning Commission Representative for January 17'b - Chairman Wong, talked about the report on Town owned properties and a suggestion to sell some of this land to finance recreational uses. Maintenance of Town pathways was also discussed. 6.2 Planning Commission Representative for February 7t° - Commissioner Vitu 6.3 Planning Commission Representative for February 21" - Commissioner Gottlieb 7. APPROVAL OF MINUTES �y 7.1 Approval of January 10, 2002 minutes MOTION SECONDED AND PASSED BY CONSENSUS: Motion by Commissioner Cottrell, seconded by Commissioner Vitu, to approve the minutes as submitted. 8. REPORT FROM THE FAST TRACK MEETING- JANUARY 29 FEBRUARY 5 & 12.2002 8.1 LANDS OF SUNG, 26450 Anacapa Drive (98-01-ZP-SD); A request for a Site Development Permit for a second story addition (decision appealed). 8.2 LANDS OF GRANT, 27235 Byme Park Lane (272-01-ZP-SD); A request for a Site Development Permit for an addition to an existing residence. 8.3 LANDS OF HUGHES, 27035 Old Trace Lane (212-01-ZP-SD); A request for a Site Development Permit for a new residence. 8.4 LANDS OF WU, 12661 Robleda Road (184-01-ZP-SD); A request for a Site Development Permit for a new residence, pool house, pool and spa. k (4w Planning Commission Minutes February 14, 2002 Page 13 Approved 3/14/02 8.5 LANDS OF SCHIEBOLD & STULZ, 27260 Sherlock Road (261-01-ZP- SD-GD); A request for a Site Development Permit for new residence and swimming pool. 8.6 LANDS O LANDS OF WILSON, 25852 Westwind Way (279-01-ZP-SD- GD); A request for a Site Development Permit for a new residence. Mr. Cahill reported that all items went smoothly except for 8.1 where an objection came up after the meeting. 9. REPORT FROM SITE DEVELOPMENT MEETING—JANUARY 15, 22, & 29, 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. 9.2 LANDS OF VAMEGHI, 25705 O'Keefe Lane (201-01-ZP-SD); A request for a Site Development Permit for a landscape screening plan. 9.3 LANDS OF LIN, 25911 Elena Road (251-01-ZP-SD); A request for a Site Development Permit for a landscape screening plan. 9.4 LANDS OF DOWELL, 25594 Elena Road (221-01-ZP-SD); A request for a Site Development Permit for a 4,930 sport court. Mr. Cahill reported that all items were approved with no issues. 10. ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned by consensus at 11:00 p.m. Respectfully submitted, n Acting Planning Secretary