Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout07/28/1979PLANNING COMMISSION Town of Los Altos Hills 26379 Fremont Road Los Altos Hills, California MINUTES OF A REGULAR MEETING Wednesday, July 25, 1979 Reel 79, Side 1, Tr. 2, 110 to End; Side 2, Tr. 2, 001 to 446 The Planning Commission meeting was called to order by Chairman vanTamelen at 7:45 p.m. in the Council Chambers of the Town Hall. ROLL CALL: Present: Commissioners Carico, Lachenbruch, Rydell, Dochnahl, Kuranoff, vanTamelen Absent: Commissioner Stewart Also Present: City Engineer/Planner John Carlson, Planning Intern Pat Webb, Secretary Ethel Hopkins CONSENT CALENDAR: The Minutes of the meeting of July 11 were approved as submitted. Approved by consensus was an additional item added to the Consent Calendar, namely: Acceptance for Filing of Tentative Map: Landsof Melchor, File Riley, E21 Eng10-79 Westwind OLD BUSINESS: Staff Reports - City Attorney (Items are reported in agenda order.) 1. LANDS OF STAMSCHROR-SILVER, File !" 8029-78, 25231 La Rena Lane, Compliance with Conditions of Conditional Use Permit for Secondary Dwelling: Commissioner Lachenbruch questioned the City Attorney with whether the Town could revoke the Use Permit for the Secondary Dwelling on the above property on the grounds that the conditions set forth were never complied with in spirit or letter and that the agreement negotiated with the applicants Stamschror and Silver was a negation of the terms of the checklist on the use permit. Mr. Gillio responded that substantial grounds must be established before proceedings for revoking a use permit may occur, and that the courts have ruled that a use permit is aright once it is accepted and acted upon. Hearings must be held to establish what the applicant did not comply with. Mr. Gillio then reviewed for the Commission the background of events concerning the subject Use Permit. This background included Council approval of Planning Commission recommendations of a Use Permit, litigation by the applicants Stamschror and Silver over conditions imposed, a demurrer, and negotiation on the part of the City M'anaoer, an outside law firm, and the applicant as requested by the court, and a recorded covenant. Commissioner Lachenbruch noted that the Planning Commission was not apprised of the legal action when it took place, and that the covenant negotiated subverts the intent and sense of the discussions held on the Use Permit. He also stated that the Commission had not seen the conditions substituted for the conditions legislated by the Planning Commission and City Council, and that the existing status of e property is inconsistent with the conditions imposed by the original checklist. Specifically, he questioned whether the covenant amounted to granting th PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES - July 25, 1979 Page two OLD BUSINESS: (continued) 1. LANDS OF STAMSCHROR-SILVER, File NCU 8029-78: (continued) of the Use Permit subject to only those conditions in the covenant. Mr. Gillio stated that in his opinion it did not. The list of conditions of the Use Permit provided that a covenant be recorded prior to sale of the property to serve as notice to the buyers that access to the property was from O'Keefe Lane, not with other requirements of the checklist. In response to Commissioner Lachenbruch's question on whether the Use Permit could be modified by negotiations, as stated in the City Manager's memo of March 23, 1979, it was Mr. Gillio's ooinion that only the Court or the City Council could have amended the Use Permit. He advised the Commission to address any questions on any modi- fications made through negotiation to the City Manager. Finally, Mr. Gillio advised that if the Planning Commission had questions on the application of the Use Permit Conditions, they should compare the checklist with the report made by the Building Official on compliance with conditions, dated July 17, 1979; and to direct questions on differences to the City Attorney. He would then contact the present owner, Mrs. Oskay, who must be given an oppor- tunity to comply with conditions. Commissioner Carico asked a general question on Conditional Use Permits. She noted that the City Attorney had stated that Use Permits, once granted, are not easily revoked. She asked, however, that if this meant that the Use Permit was in effect even if conditions were not complied with. Mr. Gillio responded that the Town can revoke Use Permits if conditions are not complied with. 2. LANDS OF TRYON, File kCU 8034-79, Lot 3, Atherton Court, Secondary Dwelling, Compliance wit Conditions of Tract Approval: Mr. Gillio directed Planning Commissioners to his memorandum of July 18 as clarification of their question on the validity of the Use Permit for the Lands of Tryon in view of Condition 15 of Tract 6524. In his judgment, Condition 15 had been complied with, and the Conditional Use Permit could now be recorded. 3. LANDS OF CLOSS, Files #SA 6100-77, 6101-77, 6102-77, Ravensbury Avenue, Paul Nowack and Associates, Engineers: Mr. Gillio reviewed the background of the above request,noting that the parcels were created by a subdivision in 1964 which divided the property into four lots. Ordinance 250 did not apply to a situation like this. He noted that problems of topography, etc. can be addressed in the site approval process; and if the applicant owns more than one lot, he can be required to contributearea toanother lot to make it more conforming, however,the Commission must also respect the rights of the property owner. He noted that th- applicant has the option of selling off lots individually and coming in for separate site approval requests. Commissioners discussed with Mr. Gillio whether restrictions could be made 16 on lots which are considered under separate ownership and were told by him that restrictions could be made if they were supported dbby scussed with Mor the he safety, health, happiness and welfare of the community. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES - July 25, 1979 Page three OLD BUSINESS: (continued) 3. LANDS OF CLOSS, Files #SA 6100-77, 6101-77, 6102-77: (continued) the difficulty of all of the lots in the subdivision meeting present slope density requirements, and whether in light of this the Town could require that lots be combined or development drastically restricted. Mr. Gillio again re- minded the Commissioners that the subdivision was a legally created subdivision, and the question that must be answered is whether a building site exists on each lot. More than that, he could not assure as to whether present day restrictions could apply in this case. He felt that decisions must be made by the Planning Com- mission on these matters, and that they must be balanced as to what is best for the Town and the rights of the applicant as a property owner. Frank Lee Crist, Jr.,Attorne for the A licant, discussed with the City Attorney t e question of the four ega lots created by a subdivision in the past and the considerations being made for their development under the site approval requests. Mr. Crist asked to continue the requests for site approvals in order to provide more information on engineering. Paul Nowack Engineer for the Applicant, asked that the question of whether three building sites exist or not be determined before the applicants goes to the expense of further geological and engineering studies. Mr. Gillio noted that he did not feel the Commission was in a position to make a decision on the three sites proposed until they had sufficient engineering in- formation, view the maps and hear from the City Engineer as to the suitability of the proposals made. Then they would be in a position to determine whether a basis exists that would necessitate application of present day ordinances or requirements. Discussion was concluded. 4. CONSERVATION EASEMENTS: Mr. Gillio noted that he had not had adequate time to respond to Counci man Perkins' most recent memo on conservation easements, and that he was still working on it. Thereafter, Mr. Gillio discussed Ordinance 232, Section 9-4.214 definition of conservation easements. He noted that the Planning Commission had the problem of coming up with uniform recommendations for the next to the last sentence in the paragraph, but that he had difficulty with the last sentence. He stated that while it was fine to show conservation easements on the final map, he preferred that the property owner prepare a signed deed so that activities in a conservation easement can be specified and agreed to. Mr. Gillio recommended that in the coming months that the Commissioners consider what uses were appropriate to come up with a list of appropriate conditions for activities in conservation easements. An important consideration would be who would maintain conservation easements in the future, since at present these were all fairly new. He suggested making an all-inclusive list of activities and then restricting each easement by deed. Appropriate statutes to consider were the Open Space Easement Act of 1974 and the Scenic Conservation Act. Another matter to kae address was that the owner will continue to own the easement, but that the Commissioner! should consider this issue carefully too. Mr. Carlson noted the problems that could occur with separate deeds. The final map reservation for conservation easements was the easiest way to denote such PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES - July 25, 1979 Page four 4. CONSERVATION EASEMENTS: (continued) an easement. A deed reservation was hard to trace down without a title search and very cumbersome for administration purposes. Mr. Gillio noted he would be glad to meet with the Subcommittee concerned with these matters and noted that a question to be concerned with was "What do you want over a long period of time for conservation to be? What are the long term purposes ?" Commissioner vanTamelen noted the need for a list of permitted activities, legal restraints on acquiring and maintaining easements, and the problem of maintenance. Commissioner Lachenbruch noted that acquisition of easements was no problem with clearly stated purposes for acquiring such easements; and Mr. Gillio noted that he was not aware of any state law that conservation easements must satisfy. Dis- cussion was concluded. At 9:05 p.m. a recess was called. The meeting resumed at 9:20 p.m PUBLIC HEARINGS: 4. LANDS OF CLOSS, File #SA 6100-77, 6101-77, 6102-77, Ravensbury Avenue, Paul Nowack and Associates, Engineers, Request for Recommendation of Approval of Site Approvals: Paul Nowack, Engineer for the Applicant, requested that the above item be con- sidered out of the stated order so tat further time might not be taken of the applicant and persons present. He asked that the matter, on the advice of counsel, be continued indefinitely so that legal and engineering problems might be clarified . MOTION SECONDED AND PASSED UNANIMOUSLY: It was moved by Commissioner Rydell and seconded by Commissioner Dochnahl to continue the Lands of Closs, Files #SA 6100-77, 6101-77, and 6102-77. 1. LANDS OF SANDER, File #A 4418, 25440 Adobe Lane, Request for Approval of Site Development for New Residence - Continued to the meeting of August 8 so that the Applicant can provide information on soils engineering for existing silos. Information was requested by the Town Building Official. 2. LANDS OF KELEZ ENTERPRISES, File #A 4458, Lot 1, Tract 6352, Horseshoe Court, Request for Site Development pproval for New Residence: Commissioner Dochnahl, as Site Development representative, discussed the above request. Thereafter, the hearing was opened to the public. Bob Kellu, A licant, noted that the plans before the Commissioners had been revised since the Site Development meeting discussion to show swale areas and slope of the lot. The tennis court site shown on the map was not a request for site development approval but merely to show the ultimate development of the lot, he informed the Commissioners. He agreed to delete the tennis court from plans, ow Commission discussed centered on the need for the applicant to show existing trees on the site and to delete the site blocked out for a future tennis court in order to avoid any confusion as to whether an implicit approval had been given on a site for a tennis court. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES - July 25, 1979 L Page five V PUBLIC HEARINGS: (continued) 2. LANDS OF KELEZ ENTERPRISES, File #A 4458: (continued) PASSED BY CONSENSUS: On the motion of Commissioner Carico it was moved that the designation "Future Tennis Court Site" be removed from the map submitted to site development for approval, and that only those improvements that would be made be shown on the map. Also, that any existing trees not shown be added to the re -submitted map along with the natural grade of the lot. Commissioner Carico noted that showing the possible development of the lot was a good idea, but that all engineering on such matters should be checked out by the City Engineer before consideration to the proposals is given by the Commission or Site Development Committee. Discussion turned to the problem of requiring land- scaping to screen the high visibility of the site. MOTION SECONDED AND PASSED UNANIMOUSLY: It was moved by Commissioner Lachenbruch and seconded by Commissioner Dochnahl that prior to final inspection of the pro- posed residence the applicant shall submit a landscaping plan prepared by a pro- fessional landscape architect. This plan shall show landscaping to soften the visual impact from off site of the house, deck and understructure of the house. This plan shall be subject to approval by the Site Development Committee prior to issuing final approval. - t MOTION SECONDED AND PASSED UNANIMOUSLY: It was moved by Commissioner Carico and seconded by Commissioner Dochnahl that the Site Development plans for the Lands of Kelez Enterprises, File #A 4458,be approved as amended by the Commission (i.e. to provide a landscaping plan). The applicant shall submit a new map showing the tennis court site deleted and showing any additional trees not shown on the former map, along with the natural grade of the lot. 3. LANDS OF F.W.K., INC., File #A 4456, Lot 2, Horseshoe Court, Request for Site Deve opment Approval for New Residence: MOTION SECONDED AND PASSED UNANIMOUSLY: It was moved by Commissioner Dochnahl and seconded by Commissioner Lachenbruch that the Site Developement plans for the Lands of F.W.K., Inc., File #A 4456, be approved as amended by the Planning Com- mission, i.e., to provide a landscaping plan prepared by a professional landscape architect to be approved by the Site Development Committee prior to final approval of the residence; and to provide new Site Development plans showing all trees on the lot and demonstrating the natural grade of the lot. OLD BUSINESS: (continued) 5. Site Oevelo�ment Review: Draft Policy Statement Regarding Landscaping for Recommendation to City Council on Landscaping Policy: Discussion on the above included the following: Commissioner Carico felt that the applicant should be considered in the landscaping process (Item #4, page two), noting that the Town has a right to choose screening, but that she could see some- time in the future when someone might ask an applicant not to plant so that his view might not be impaired. Commissioner Kuranoff noted the need to preserve view corridors when planting landscaping. A 6 4W PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES - July 25, 1979 Page six OLD BUSINESS: (continued) 5. Site Develo went Review: Draft Polis Statement Re ardin Landscaping for Te mmendation to ity CouE on Landscaping Po icy: Carol Gottlieb, Pathway Committee, requested the statement reflect that landscaping s ould a planted far enough away from paths so as not to encroach on them, and that neither mailboxes or trees should obstruct the pathway in any way. On bike lanes, the shoulders of the roads should be brought up to the road level, and plantings installed between the shoulder of the road and the path area. Also discussed were how to ensure that landscaping is installed and maintained, who is to be protected by the landscaping, and when landscaping plans will be required. The impact of landscaping on solar equipment was also reviewed. Ken Pastrof, Paul Nowack and Associates, Los Altos, discussed options that could Fe available to ensure when andscaping would be provided for new residences. The following changes were made in the draft submitted by Mrs. Ginzton dated June 8, 1979. Changes were passed with the consensus of the Commission. Paragraph #1: The "#1" should be deleted, and after the end of the sentence, the Paragraph numbered "13" should be added to the paragraph (the "#3" should be deleted). The statement beginning "The Planning Commission recognizes..." should be numbered #1 as a subparagraph below the first para- graph on general purposes of the statement. Paragraph #2: This paragraph should be left as is down to the sentence ending "...and fire-resistant plants." This paragraph should be subparagraph #2 under the new #1 above. The beginning of of the first senterceshould read: "Another major function of...", and the fifth line should be amended with the insertion of the following after the phrase "...to prevent erosion, to abate unnatural noises, to protect wildlife habitat...". Subparagraph #3 should begin with "The retention of aesthetic quality, for the public at large....". Paragraph #5: Should remain as proposed by Mrs. Ginzton. Paragraph #6: (numbered statement #1): After the first sentence add: A bond shall be posted, as per the Municipal Code, to ensure that mini- mum screening and landscaping requirements are installed and maintained. Paragraph #2: (Page two): Remains as written. Paragraph #3: All remains as it is until sentence three which should be amended to read: Ours is a rounded hills, oak and grasslands landscape with bay and oak trees along creeks. The next two sentences should be deleted. Instead, add: Where possible, landscaping should be compatible with this type of natural vegetation. Plants, mailboxes and other landscaping structures should be placed so as not to encroach on the travel way. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES - July 25, 1979 t Page seven OLD BUSINESS: (continued) 5. Site Development Review: Draft Policy Statement Regarding Landscaping for Paragraph #4: Should be amended to read: The Town's primary interest in land- the scaping concern the impact on the views from off site and vistas. The next sentence should maximum preservation of natural be amended to read: "Beyond replanting to prevent..." (same as written). Paragraph #5: (Added) View corridors and open spaces should be considered. Paragraph #6: (added) Landscaping placements should accommodate requirements for both passive and active solar systems without sacrificing the aesthetic objectives set forth in this statement. Paragraph #6: (Renumber to #7). Amend this statement to read: The Town Site Development addresses each individual case at the time of only. Staff raised considerations of planting in high fire risk areas, the matters of providing for noise buffering, ways of providing for review by the Site Development Committee of landscaping plans before the residence is given final approval, and t how to provide for bonding and maintenance of landscaping. fir' Ken Pastrof, noted that with the Green Hills Court subdivision, that CC&Rs for the deve opment required that all landscaping be installed within six months of the occupancy of homes by owners. The proposed statement of landscape policy was recommended to be sent to the City Council.* Staff would provide some comment on the policy, mostly centering in the areas of the administration of the policy statement guidelines. Chairman vanTamelen noted that Item #1 of Councilman Perkins' memo of July 11 had been accomplished. There were four more to be discussed, and these items would be on the agenda for the August 8th meeting of the Planning Commission. If Commissioners needed copies of the memo, they were to contact the Planning secretary. *Copy of revised Landscape Policy Statement is attached to the Minutes. NEW BUSINESS: 1. Resolution Setting Date of Public Hearing on Tennis Court Policy: Discussion on this item resolved that the earliest a public hearing could be held on the above matter would be the second meeting in September (September 26). The resolution setting the date of the public hearing should also refer to a survey taken by the Town's newsletter. A means of surveying public opinion of the Town by the September newsletter was determined to be a good way of sampling of opinions pro and con on tennis courts. L Planning Intern Pat Webb read a list of proposed questions to be included for 4r response by Town residents. It was also requested that a fact sheet, information from neighboring towns on tennis court policy, any staff reports, and a map indicating the location of tennis courts in the Town would be sent out to the Commission by the August 22 meeting. The date of the public hearing would be set at the August 22 meeting. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES - July 25, 1979 L Page eight ` NEW BUSINESS: (continued) 2. Setting of Dates of Public Hearings for August 8th Meeti There were no new items to set for public hearings for the August 8th meeting. Lands of Janklow, File #VAR. 7062-79 was continued for the Variance and Permit Commission meeting to the August 8th meeting, as was Lands of Sander, File 04418 for the Planning Commission. 3. Re ort from Cit Council Meeting of Jul 18: Commission Stewart gave a short report on t e passage of the Lands of Hom subdivision by the City Council. 4. Pathways Priorities: Chairman vanTamelen stated that she was sending a memo on t is matter to t e City Council in response to the Mayor's request for convent from the Commissioners. She urged the Commissioners to send their comments also when they were ready. ADJOURNMENT: There being no further new or old business, the meeting of the Planning Commission was adjourned at 12:17 p.m. Respectfully submitted, u Ethel Hopkins Secretary 1w DRAFT Passed by Planning Commission Action of July 25, 197 DRAFT POLICY STATEMENT REGARDING LANDSCAPING 4W This policy statement sets forth the opinion of the Planning Commission of Los Altos Hills as to the functions of landscaping requirements in Site Development. The General Plan calls for landscaping to create maximum compatibility of development with the natural environment. To this end, the Planning Commission feels that landscaping may be required to soften the impact of new buildings, swimming pools, tennis courts, or driveways, as seen from off the site. Because of the hilly, difficult terrain, the impact of graded roads, new buildings, tennis courts, and swimming pools may be felt miles away as well as by the immediate neighbors and the travelling public along the roadway. The Planning Commission recognizes that one function of land- scaping is to please the people on whose property the landscaping exists. In regard to this function, the Town should not assume responsibility. Another major function is to protect the environment, visual as well as natural. In regard to this function, the Town has the responsibility, according to the General Plan, to require planting and/or replanting, where necessary to maintain soil stability, to prevent erosion, to abate unnatural noises, protect wildlife habitat, and to retain aesthetic quality, with an emphasis on native and fire-resistant plants. 4 3. The retention of aesthetic quality for the public at large is a function of landscaping in which the Town should play an active role. For the benefit of its citizens, the Town should protect the scenic views and seek to mitigate the effects of large, un- natural, or unsightly structures. In order to provide guidance to those presenting plans for new structures or gradinq plans to the Site Development Committee, the Planning Commission sets forth the following guidelines: 1. The Town requires only the minimum number of plants necessary. A bond shall be posted, as per the Municipal Code, to ensure that minimum screening and landscaping requirements are installed and maintained. 2. The larger the structure, the larger the plants should be to soften the effect of the structure. 3. Plants placed close to a structure are much more effective as screening than plants along the perimeter of the property. Furthermore, the judicious placement of a few shrubs and trees near the new structure (especially in meadow or orchard areas) ensures the natural or rural quality of the Town. Ours is a rounded hills, oak and grasslands landscape with bay and oak trees along creeks. Where possible, landscaping should be compatible with this type of natural vegetation. Plants, mail- boxes and other landscaping structures should be placed so as not to encroach on the travel way. 4. The Town's primary interest in landscaping concerns the impact f on the views from off site and the maximum preservation of 4 of natural vistas. Beyond replanting to prevent erosion and to maintain soil stability, and beyond the minimum visual mitigating effect required, the applicant has no responsibility to the Town to landscape. 5. View corridors and open spaces should be considered. 6. Landscaping placements should accommodate requirements for both passive and active solar systems without sacrificing the aesthetic objectives set forth in this statement. 7. The Town addresses each individual case at the time of Site Development only.