Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout03/01/2007Minutes of a Regular Meeting Approved 4/5/2007 L Town of Los Altos Hills PLANNING COMMISSION THURSDAY, March 1, 2007, 7:00 p.m. Council Chambers, 26379 Fremont Road cc: Cassettes (1) #3-07 ROLL CALL AND PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE The regular meeting of the Planning Commission was called to order at 7:00 p.m. in the Council Chambers at Town Hall. Present: Chairman Collins, Commissioners Carey, Clow, Cottrell & Harpootlian Staff: Debbie Pedro, Planning Director; Brian Froelich, Associate Planner; Victoria Ortland, Planning Secretary 2. PRESENTATIONS FROM THE FLOOR -none. PUBLIC HEARINGS 3.1 LANDS OF ZANJANI, 24624 Summerhill Avenue (90-06-ZP-SD-CDP); A request for a Conditional Development Permit for a 4,060 square foot two-story new residence (maximum height 25' feet) and a Variance to allow a trash enclosure and two required surface parking spaces to encroach within the side yard setback. CEQA Review — Categorical Exemption per Section 15303(a) (Staff -Debbie Pedro). Debbie Pedro, Planning Director, presented the staff report for a new residence on Summerhill Avenue that required a Conditional Development Permit. The constrained lot had a LUF of 0.425. The property was part of a subdivision created in 1951 and the building was constructed in 1952, prior to the Town's incorporation in 1956. The applicant had proposed to remove all of the non -conforming structures on the property. Four parking spaces are required with two being provided within the garage and two surface parking spaces located over existing paving in the setback. A portion of the trash enclosure was also proposed to be placed in the setback on existing paving. Findings for the variance included the substandard size of the lot along with the topography that gives very limited area to locate the parking spaces and the trash enclosure. The other available area to locate the parking spaces was along the front of the house and required additional grading and removal of existing landscape screening. In addition, only one of the required parking spaces could be accommodated in the front and would be in clear view of the street and neighbors. The Pathways Committee had recommended the installation of a Type 2B pathway along Summerhill Avenue. Commissioner Clow stated that the trash enclosure appeared to have no roof and was like a four foot wall. A variance in the setback would not be required for a four foot wall. The hardscape Planning Commission Minutes Approved 4/5/2007 March 1, 2007 Page 2 under the trash enclosure was similar to a four foot wide path that was allowable in the setback. If the Planning Commission decided that no variance was required for the project, would that be consistent with the ordinances? Debbie Pedro replied that it could be argued that the existing permitted development area covered the site of the trash enclosure. It could be considered legal non -conforming like the driveway paving. Jahan Zanjani, applicant, stated that the submittal was an overall addition of approximately 700 square feet. He wanted to keep the parking spaces and trash enclosure near the upper part of the property for ease of access to the house instead of using the stairs. The driveway had been in existence for 50 years. The neighbors he had contacted were in support of the project and the variance. Commissioner Harpootlian said he had met with Mr. Zanjani earlier in the day at his residence. OPENED PUBLIC HEARING Carol Gottlieb, Summerhill Avenue, expressed the need for the pathway on Summerhill Avenue and appreciated the path installation. CLOSED PUBLIC HEARING Commissioner Clow supported the application. He disclosed he had spoken to the applicant and the neighbor on the other side of the fence where the driveway is at the property line. The neighbor was very supportive of the project. He did not consider the trash enclosure to require a variance but was legal non -conforming and supported the parking spaces where they are located. Commissioner Harpootlian had concerns about the parking spaces in the setback and the location being well within ten feet of the property line. He suggested a solution would be to move the parking spaces to the east side of the driveway placed in a tandem fashion. He was concerned with the lack of remaining development area for future outdoor use. Commissioner Cottrell supported the plan and felt it was very well done. He thought moving the parking spaces to the front would require considerable more grading. Commissioner Carey was supportive of the application as proposed or with the parking spaces relocated toward Summerhill Avenue. He wanted to hear more discussion about moving the parking spaces out of the setback. Chairman Collins supported the project and stated that parking in the setback had been allowed in the past especially on constrained lots. 41Y Jahan Zanjani was not in favor of locating the parking area in the front of the property because of the increased cost for grading and retaining walls. He felt that cars parked in the current location Planning Commission Minutes Approved 4/5/2007 March 1, 2007 Page 3 4 were barely visible from the street. If the parking area were moved to the suggested site cars would be very visible and contribute to a neighborhood appearance he does not like. He also spoke in favor of the existing parking site in regards to easier access to the kitchen for carrying groceries. Debbie Pedro, Planning Director, pointed out that the parking spaces placed in the tandem arrangement would require an exception as the code requires unobstructed parking. Also, moving the parking spaces to the front of the property may require more than three feet of fill to create the pad. MOTION SECONDED AND APPROVED BY THE FOLLOWING VOICE VOTE: Motion by Commissioner Clow and seconded by Commissioner Cottrell to approve the application with an exception that the trash enclosure be considered as legal non -conforming rather than a variance and add a condition of approval stating that the walls of the trash enclosure not exceed four feet in height and the top of the enclosure remains uncovered. AYES: Chairman Collins, Commissioners Carey, Clow and Cottrell NOES: Commissioner Harpoothan This approval is subject to a 22 day appeal period. L 3.2 LANDS OF EPISCOPAL LAYMANS GROUP OF LOS ALTOS (APPLICANT: ta+ SPRINT NEXTEL), 26140 Duval Way (St. Luke's Chapel); File # 27 -07 -CUP; Conditional Use Permit renewal for an existing/previously approved wireless communications facility. The facility consists of ground cabinets and three panel antennas mounted inside a 35' tall flagpole. No new change is being proposed to the existing buildings, structures or use of the facilities. CEQA review: exempt per 15301 (a) (Staff -Brian Froelich, AICP). Brian Froelich, Associate Planner, presented the staff report stating the application was a Conditional Use Permit renewal for a Sprint installation originally approved by City Council. The site consists of three panel antennas installed inside a flagpole along with associated ground equipment cabinets. The site was operating in compliance with the Town's Wireless Communications Facility Policy and the Conditions of Approval. The submitted Electromagnetic Energy Survey indicated that the site was operating within the maximum permissible FCC standards. The applicant had provided a three to five year master plan for Sprint that did not propose any new sites. The Planning Commission is to review the application for recommendation to City Council for renewal of the existing Conditional Use Permit. Commissioner Harpoothan confirmed with staff that the site was non-residential. Matthew Yergovich, Representative for Sprint, said government code section number 65964 enacted by Senate bill 1627 had been passed on January 1, 2007. The code section states that a city or county shall not unreasonably limit permit duration for telecommunication use. A permit of less than 10 years was presumed unreasonable. 4 Planning Commission Minutes March 1, 2007 Page 4 Approved 4/5/2007 Discussion ensued regarding the length of Conditional Use Permits in the Town. OPENED PUBLIC HEARING Frederick Mueller, Duval Way, was opposed to the permit renewal. His house was located between the two antennas on the church property and two antennas at Foothill College. He feels four antennas in the neighborhood does not enhance but reduces property values. He prefers this antenna be moved to another site because the Duval Way area is overburdened with antennas. Mary Jackson, Duval Way, presented photographs of the landscaping in the area and spoke about the trees planted to screen the flagpole that had now perished and had been removed. Dean Pourmand, Josefa Lane, felt the flagpole antenna should be removed. He stated the antennas at Foothill College were a problem. He wanted the college and the church to abide by the same standards as property owners. Matthew Yergovich, Representative for Sprint, reported that no changes were proposed for the site. Commissioner Carey asked if there was collocation on the antenna or if Mr. Yergovich was ( familiar with the other antennas in the area and the possibility of Sprint moving to another �/ antenna and eliminating the flagpole antenna. Matthew Yergovich said it was not possible and collocation is not available. An audience member asked the name of the company utilizing the antenna in the church steeple. Chairman Collins wished to keep the discussion focused on the application before the Commission and not the other telecommunication carriers and antennas in the area. Debbie Pedro explained that the Town had a wireless communication facilities policy that states priorities for site location. Town owned property had highest priority; other public facilities such as Foothill College or water tanks had next priority for locating wireless sites. Collocation was encouraged to minimize the number of structures. There is no change proposed for the flagpole site. If there is a need for additional landscaping the neighbors can make specific requests for screening that can become conditions of approval to be presented to City Council. CLOSED PUBLIC HEARING Commissioner Cottrell referred to the policy established by City Council that listed the site priorities for antennas that included churches. He had empathy for the neighbors because of the several antennas located nearby. 6I Commissioner Carey felt the application should be renewed but wanted the wireless policy to address the coordination of carriers and eliminate antennas if possible. C19 Planning Commission Minutes Approved 4/5/2007 March 1, 2007 Page 5 Commissioner Clow stated that collocation was investigated but not possible for the steeple antenna when the flagpole antenna was originally installed. Collocation is pursued by the Town and typically requires higher towers. Discussion continued about height of different types of towers, collocation arrangements and locations of towers. Commissioner Clow supported a recommendation to Council to support the application with a 5 year renewal unless the law requires a 10 year timeframe. Landscape screening is a good idea for the site and should be maintained Debbie Pedro interjected that the applicant has certain vested rights with the approval of the Conditional Use Permit to locate at the site. Unless there has been a violation of the use permit the Town typically cannot revoke the permit. Conditions may be added to mitigate the neighborhood concerns. Commissioner Carey queried about the revocation of Conditional Use Permits granted by the Town. Debbie Pedro answered that the City attorney would be consulted on the issue. MOTION SECONDED AND PASSED BY THE FOLLOWING VOICE VOTE: Motion by Commissioner Clow and seconded by Commissioner Harpootlian to recommend to City Council approval to extend the Conditional Use Permit for 5 years with staff investigation to determine whether 10 years is required and if so extend the approval for 10 years. Add to the conditions of approval a $5,000 landscape screening installation deposit and required maintenance of the landscaping with replacement of plantings if they do not survive. Neighboring property owners will coordinate with staff to determine where landscape screening is to be placed. Debbie Pedro requested neighbor input on location of additional landscaping for the site to develop a screening plan that is acceptable. Staff will visit the affected properties to examine the view issues. She asked for written suggestions from the property owners stating specific locations for landscape screening to be included in the conditions of approval. Chairman Collins asked the neighborhood group present for a representative to coordinate the information to be provided to staff regarding the landscape screening. Commissioner Carey would like staff to investigate the possibility of collocating this facility on other towers. Commissioner Harpootlian instead suggested an independent request to City Council to form a committee to examine the issue of collocation of antennas in the Town. 4 Chairman Collins and Commissioner Cottrell concurred. Planning Commission Minutes Approved 4/5/2007 March 1, 2007 Page 6 AYES: Chairman Collins, Commissioners Carey, Clow, Cottrell and Harpoothan NOES: None Commissioner Carey wished to note he recommended the possibility of collocating Sprint on a neighboring antenna be investigated between this decision and the presentation to City Council. Matthew Yergovich, Representative for Sprint, asked for confirmation of the validity of the language requiring the landscape deposit. Chairman Collins requested the City attorney's opinion on the landscape installation deposit. This item will be scheduled for a future City Council meeting. 4. OLD BUSINESS Debbie Pedro reported that the Open Space Committee had proposed revised language for the General Plan Conservation Element section to be reviewed by the Planning Commission before being forwarded to City Council. Discussion ensued among the Commissioners and staff regarding the reasons for the Planning Commission to hear the revised language. MOTION SECONDED AND PASSED BY THE FOLLOWING ROLL CALL VOTE: Motion by Commissioner Clow and seconded by Chairman Collins that the April 5`h Planning Commission meeting include a noticed Public Hearing to consider the revised language for the Conservation Element of the General Plan. AYES: Chairman Collins, Commissioners Clow, Cottrell and Harpootlian NOES: Commissioner Carey 5. NEW BUSINESS -none 6. REPORT FROM THE CITY COUNCIL MEETING 6.1 Planning Commission Representative for Jan. I llh-Commissioner Carey 6.2 Planning Commission Representative for Jan. 25th -Cancelled 6.3 Planning Commission Representative for Feb. 8`h -Chairman Collins -Chairman Collins reported on the Council's scheduled survey of 400 residents to gather opinion on development standards in Town. 6.4 Planning Commission Representative for Feb. 22nd -Commissioner Clow Commissioner Carey voiced concern over the imbalance in development standards for Conditional Development Permit lots. Recent applications for these types of sites had requested variances for parking or other structures. The setbacks remain the same for small or large lots. �I He suggested review of the issue for any recommended changes to the ordinances for substandard lots. Variances had been granted in his neighborhood for parking but not for Planning Commission Minutes March 1, 2007 Page 7 Approved 4/5/2007 structures. This had resulted in box like houses that may have been better mitigated with design allowing encroachment in the setback. Commissioner Harpoothan added that one acre lots with 20 or 30 percent slope also had a small development area relative to the size of the house. Commissioner Clow felt the development standards were not fair but proposed changes in setbacks or MDA should be approached with caution. Commissioner Carey thought relaxing setback requirements and restricting two story structures from constrained lots might help prevent a tall wall from being constructed next to a neighboring home. Planning Director Debbie Pedro suggested that applying a different set of standards for smaller lots may create pressure to increase development and subdivision of lots. The Planning Commission has the authority to limit floor area for homes on CDP lots. Chairman Collins requested that the subject of development on CDP lots be discussed at the next Planning Commission meeting. ( 7. APPROVAL OF MINUTES aw 7.1 Approval of February 1, 2007 minutes PASSED BY CONSENSUS: To approve the February 1, 2007 minutes as amended. 8. REPORT FROM FAST TRACK MEETING - FEBRUARY 27, 2007 8.1 LANDS OF KALKAT, 14132 Seven Acres Lane (230-06-ZP-SD); A request for a Site Development Permit for a 3,425 square foot addition to the existing residence (maximum height 22 feet). The proposal includes a new garage with a second -story storage room and a reconfigured driveway. CEQA review: exempt per 15301 (e) (Staff -Brian Froelich, AICP). Approved with conditions. 9. REPORT FROM SITE DEVELOPMENT MEETING FEBRUARY 6 AND FEBRUARY 20, 2007 9.1 LANDS OF GAHRAHMAT, 23856 Ravensbury Avenue (198-06-ZP-SD); A request for a Site Development Permit for a 292 square foot single story addition and interior remodel. CEQA review: 15303(a) (Staff -Nicole Horvitz). Approved with conditions. 9.2 LANDS OF ASKARI, 27630 Via Cerro Gordo (234-06-ZP-SD); A request for a ` Site Development Permit for a landscape screening plan. CEQA review - �W Categorical Exemption 15304 (b) (Staff -Nicole Horvitz). Approved with conditions. Planning Commission Minutes Approved 4/5/2007 March 1, 2007 Page 8 Commissioner Harpootlian reported that the structure of the interaction at the Fast Track meetings is significantly different than the structure of interaction at the Planning Commission meetings. He suggested an applicant be given the opportunity to have a Fast Track Hearing with the understanding that a Planning Commission Hearing may also be required. Planning Director Debbie Pedro said that the ordinance is written in a way that the Planning Director has the discretion to forward any project to the Planning Commission for review. Applicants will be given the option for a Fast Track meeting whenever applicable. 10. The meeting was adjourned by consensus at 8:44 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Victoria Ortland Planning Secretary 6,9 Minutes of a Regular Meeting Approved 05/03/2007 Town of Los Altos Hills PLANNING COMMISSION THURSDAY, April 5,2007,7:00 p.m. Council Chambers, 26379 Fremont Road cc: Cassettes(1)#4-07 ROLL CALL AND PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE The regular meeting of the Planning Commission was called to order at 7:00 p.m. in the Council Chambers at Town Hall. Present: Chairman Collins, Commissioners Carey, Clow, Cottrell & Harpoothan Staff: Debbie Pedro, Planning Director; Brian Froelich, Associate Planner; Nicole Horvitz, Assistant Planner; Leslie Hopper, Contract Planner; Victoria Ortland, Planning Secretary PRESENTATIONS FROM THE FLOOR -none. ko 3. PUBLIC HEARINGS 3.1 LANDS OF RYAN, 14350 Manuella Road (181 -06 -IS -ND -TM); Negative Declaration and Tentative Map for a two -lot subdivision of a 2.27 net acre parcel. CEQA Review: Mitigated Negative Declaration (Staff -Brian Froelich). Brian Froelich, Associate Planner, presented the staff report stating that the application for a two -lot subdivision was located at the northeast comer of Manuella Road and Alicante Lane. The tentative map application required a 30 -foot right of way dedication along Manuella Road. The 2.27 acre site division would produce proposed Lot 1 with 1.269 acres and a 3.3 percent slope and proposed Lot 2 with 1.001 acres and a 3.7 percent slope. The Pathways Committee had recommended the installation of a pathway along the frontage of Manuella Road and Alicante Lane both in the right of way. Two utility poles would be removed and the utilities placed underground. Access for Lot 1 would be taken from Manuella Road and access for Lot 2 would be from Alicante Lane. The lots would be connected to the Los Altos sewer basin and the Town engineer had recommended a tie-in to the stoma drain system. At the Subdivision meeting on March 13, 2007 a neighbor on Debell Road expressed some view concerns. Staff, the applicant's representatives and the concerned neighbor met at the site subsequent to the hearing. City Council had approved a Tentative Map for the site in May of 2000 but the previous owner did not file a Final Map and the approval expired. Staff is seeking Planning Commission Approved 05/04/2007 April 5, 2007 Page 2 of 8 Planning Commission's comments on the environmental analysis and forwarding of the tentative map to the City Council. Commissioner Cottrell asked about the proposed pathway on Alicante Lane and its destination. OPENED PUBLIC HEARING Jude Kink, architect for the applicant, explained that two custom homes are proposed for the lots. On Lot 1, the larger site, a home for the applicant is proposed and on Lot 2 a smaller home for the applicant's assistant is proposed. Commissioner Carey asked about the size of the proposed home for Lot 2 and the reason the project could not be accomplished without a subdivision of the lot. Mr. Kirik replied that the house on Lot 2 would be approximately 1,300 square feet in size and the garage had an attached art studio that would increase the square footage. Staff explained that secondary units may be either detached or attached and are restricted to 1,000 square feet. For the Ryan project, the primary residence for Lot 1 had proposed an attached secondary unit for the site. William Downey, De Bell Road, had no problem with the subdivision but had concerns about the effect on the view. He felt that when the story poles are up that he will have a better idea if there is an obstruction. Dot Schriener, Saddle Mountain Drive, stated that the Pathways Element requires a pathway to be started on a road that serves more than six homes. She believes that is the reason the pathway was requested for Alicante Lane. Commissioner Carey asked what the Master Pathways Map showed for the area. Debbie Pedro, Planning Director, explained that, as stated in the Pathways Element, the Pathways Committee may recommend a pathway for six or more lots. CLOSED PUBLIC HEARING Commissioner Harpootlian stated that he attended the Subdivision Committee meeting and also visited William Downey's residence. He agreed that it was nearly impossible at this stage to see if there would be any obstruction of the view and supported the pathway as presented. Commissioner Cottrell felt the application met all requirements and supported the project 4 Planning Commission Approved 05/04/2007 April 5, 2007 Page 3 of 8 Commissioner Carey did not see the point of the pathway on Alicante but supported the project either with or without the pathway. Commissioner Clow supported the project with the pathway on Alicante Lane Chairman Collins also supported the project. MOTION SECONDED, AMENDED AND APPROVED BY THE FOLLOWING VOICE VOTE: Motion by Commissioner Clow, seconded by Commissioner Carey and amended to recommend to the City Council based on the initial study to adopt the mitigated negative declaration and mitigation monitoring program in Attachment 3 and forward a recommendation to the City Council to approve the tentative map based on the finding in Attachment 2 and subject to the conditions of approval in Attachment 1. AYES: Chairman Collins , Commissioners Carey, Clow, Cottrell and Harpootlian NOES: None This item will be scheduled for a future City Council meeting 3.2 GENERAL PLAN UPDATE, Proposed revisions to the draft Conservation Element of the General Plan regarding wildlife species and habitat. (Staff -Leslie Hopper). Leslie Hopper, Contract Planner, explained after this section of the Conservation Element was reviewed at the February 1, 2007 Planning Commission meeting, most of the proposed programs and policies on wildlife corridors and fences had been deleted. The Open Space Committee submitted new draft language to staff and asked if it could be added back into the Wildlife section. Staff recommended approval of the changes to the Wildlife section and hoped to present a complete update of the phase one project to the City Council. The summarized proposed revisions included a new paragraph 315 about the need for planning to protect and conserve wildlife habitat, along with planning for the natural movement of wildlife. The revision does not talk directly about wildlife corridors or fences. Three new programs are proposed. Two would call for further study to inventory wildlife habitat areas and access the potential of development to fragment and isolate wildlife habitat. The programs would support the effort the Town is making to map wildlife corridors. Program 3.4 would give staff the discretion when appropriate to require a wildlife study during proposed development review. Staff requested a minor modification to Programs 3.2 and 3.3 to remove the language "as recommended by the State of California General Plan guidelines". Commissioner Harpoothan distributed copies of his suggested alternative to Program 3.4. Commissioner Clow had concerns about Program 3.4 and the wording `reviewing proposed development' that could mean any permit and not just new homes. Planning Commission Approved 05/04/2007 April 5, 2007 Page 4 of 8 Planning Director Debbie Pedro explained that the type of development where a wildlife study may be requested is at the discretion of the planning department. This would pertain to development that might have a significant effect on wildlife habitat especially in areas with an open space easement or along riparian corridors. Commissioner Clow wondered if language could be added to Program 3.4 to make it clearer that a wildlife study could be requested only for projects that would have great impact on wildlife habitat. Commissioner Cottrell pointed out that most of the areas are located in conservation easements where no development can take place. Commissioner Clow suggested adding the word "strongly" so that Program 3.4 read "might strongly affect areas of significant wildlife habitat". OPENED PUBLIC HEARING Richard Partridge, Briones Way, felt that the revisions were good. In regards to paragraph 315 he felt that wildlife moved along other paths as well as riparian and creek areas. Nancy Couperus, Page Mill Road, Open Space Committee member, hoped the Planning Commission would accept the revised version. Sam Broydo, Purissima Road, felt the language was not specific enough to be practical. He was not opposed to the addition to the General Plan but wanted more definition of the terms. Allen Epstein, Ravensbury Avenue, wondered what areas of the Town were included by the words "wildlife habitat areas". Did this apply to homeowner's property as well as open space? He felt that the terms were not well defined. Dot Schriener, Saddle Mountain Drive, explained that a general plan was intended to provide a broad "umbrella" over certain issues to help illustrate goals. The policy would come later in the form of code and implementation through specific programs and policies. She said the Open Space Committee had developed a map from resident observation showing how wildlife travels the areas in the Town. Bob Stutz, Elena Road, told of his experience with wildlife in the Town. Sandy Humphries, Fremont Road, felt that the Town was a rare place for people to be able to cohabitate with the natural wildlife. She did not want this opportunity destroyed for the residents who appreciate the wildlife. Planning Commission Approved 05/04/2007 April 5, 2007 Page 5 of S Nobuko Cleary, Silent Hills Lane, had concerns about wildlife easements at a proposed new residence on Eshner Court. She also mentioned the placement of extra dirt in the creek on the Seton (Daughters of Charity) property. Chairman Collins requested that staff investigate these concerns. Nancy Coupems, Page Mill Road, stated that, according to the State guidelines under what is called "the shoe fits" doctrine, the General Plan must address broad issues that are relevant to the planning area. That is why particular issues that pertain to the rural community of the Town are brought up in the General Plan. CLOSED PUBLIC HEARING Chairman Collins asked Leslie Hopper to explain the purpose of a general plan and how ordinances are related. Leslie Hopper, Contract Planner, explained that the General Plan is first and foremost a policy document. It is the Town's opportunity to set guiding principles and policies. The General Plan is an expression of the Town's values. The General Plan articulates policies and in a general way sets out programs that can implement that policy. Often the programs are implemented through the adoption of ordinances or other policy. Commissioner Clow agreed with the language with exception to Program 3.4, which should be changed to read "might strongly affect" areas of significant wildlife. Commissioner Carey supported the language as presented, or with Commissioner Clow's suggested addition to 3.4. Commissioner Cottrell supported the language as written. Commissioner Harpoothan supported the language as presented and Program 3.4 either as presented or with the addition discussed. He would like to leave in the phrase "as recommended by the State of California general plan guidelines". Chairman Collins supported the revisions as written and the addition in Program 3.4 of the word "might strongly affect". MOTION SECONDED, AMENDED AND PASSED BY THE FOLLOWING VOICE VOTE: Motion by Commissioner Cottrell and seconded by Commissioner Carey to recommend approval of the Open Space Committee's and staff's proposed revisions to the Wildlife Species and Habitat section of the draft Conservation Element with change in program 3.4 to add the word "might strongly affect". AYES: Chairman Collins, Commissioners Carey, Clow, Cottrell and Harpootlian NOES: None Planning Commission Approved 05/04/2007 April 5, 2007 Page 6 0£ 8 !r Leslie Hopper asked for clarification regarding the Commission's intent as far as the language in Programs 3.2 and 3.3. Commissioner Cottrell amended his motion to include the deletion of "as recommended by the State of California General Plan guidelines" in those two policies. MOTION WAS AMENDED AND APPROVED. This item will be scheduled for a future City Council meeting. 4. OLD BUSINESS 4.1 DISCUSSION ON SETBACK REQUIREMENTS FOR SUBSTANDARD (CDP) LOTS Planning Director, Debbie Pedro, presented information on Conditional Development Permit lots in Town. She focused on the 63 substandard sized lots of .2 to .5 acre in size and stated that 45 are already developed. Commissioner Carey felt that there was an imbalance in the amount of square footage allowed in relation to the setback requirements. Taller houses are being designed to fit on small lots that have the same setbacks as larger lots. Perhaps relaxing setback requirements for substandard lots and allowing structures to be built closer to the property line would allow for reduction in the height of the building. Commissioner Clow felt having absolute requirements for the height of buildings and setbacks is warranted. Commissioner Cottrell agreed with Commissioner Clow. He thought architects often try to fit the maximum square footage on a lot when perhaps the houses may be just too large for the lot. There are not many lots in Town of this size and it is too hard to have variable setback regulations. He was in favor of leaving the setbacks as written. Commissioner Harpoothan appreciated both sides of the issue but agreed with Commissioner Clow. He felt that variances worked for applicants that have specific needs. Chairman Collins agreed that the existing ordinances work and that if a concern arose over a proposed construction project fitting the size of a lot, then the house is too large and the design should be changed appropriately. She also felt the cost of a lot reflects the limitations of what can be built on the lot. Dot Schriener, Saddle Mountain Drive, said she was on the Planning Commission when the larger numbers were proposed and passed. She felt at that time there would be problems with the setbacks and the reduction in the desired open space area around Planning Commission Approved 05/04/2007 April 5, 2007 Page 7 of 8 4 houses. She was concerned in regards to percentages; the substandard lots actually allow more development than the acre lots. Resident, felt that constraints such as easements and setbacks prevent development on larger properties also. Allowing structures closer to the setback affects not only the property owner's lot but the neighboring property as well. Chairman Collins closed the discussion on setback requirements. 5. NEW BUSINESS 5.1 QUARTERLY SOLAR REPORT Nicole Horvitz, Assistant Planner, reported that during the first quarter of 2007, the building and planning departments had issued eleven permits for solar photovoltaic systems. All applications were for roof mounted solar with one permit taking advantage of the development area bonus and three permits issued for new residences. Commissioner Carey commented that only one project took advantage of the development area bonus. Debbie Pedro, Planning Director, explained that when a project qualified for additional development area, the bonus may be used at a later date. The solar panel development area bonus program expires in 2013. Commissioner Harpootlian asked if the other permits issued were in conjunction with remodels or only as solar panels system installations. 6. REPORT FROM THE CITY COUNCIL MEETING 6.1 Planning Commission Representative for March 8'a, Commissioner Clow reported that the City Council had upheld the Planning Commission's decision for the driveway placement of the LANDS OF MOELLER subdivision application. 6.2 Planning Commission Representative for March 22nd -Commissioner Carey 6.3 Planning Commission Representative for April 12'a -Commissioner Harpootlian 6.4 Planning Commission Representative for April 26'a, -Commissioner Harpoothan and Commissioner Clow reported on the LANDS OF PAPP fence application. 7. APPROVAL OF MINUTES 7.1 Approval of March 1, 2007 minutes 4W PASSED BY CONSENSUS: To approve the March 1, 2007 minutes as amended. Planning Commission April 5, 2007 Page 8 of 8 `0 8. REPORT FROM FAST TRACK MEETING — none 9. REPORT FROM SITE DEVELOPMENT MEETING — none 10. ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjoumed by consensus at 8:32 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Victoria Ortland Planning Secretary M v Approved 05/04/2007