Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout09/26/1979 (2)PLANNING COMMISSION V Town of Los Altos Hills 26379 Fremont Road Los Altos Hills, California MINUTES OF A REGULAR MEETING Wednesday, September 26, 1979 Reel 80, Side 2, Tr. 2, 574 to End; Reel 81, Side 1, Tr. 1, 001 to End Chairman vanTamelen called the meeting of the Planning Commission to order at 7:40 p.m. in the Council Chambers of the Town Hall. ROLL CALL: Present: Commissioners Carico, Lachenbruch, Rydell, Stewart, Dochnahl, Kuranoff, .vanTamelen Absent: None Also Present: City Engineer/Planner John Carlson, Assistant Planner Pat Webb, Secretary Ethel Hopkins Press: Florence Pallakoff, Los Altos Town Crier; Ann Gibbons, Peninsula Times -Tribune CONSENT CALENDAR Item #2, Tentative Map Acceptance, Lands of Philbrick, File #TM 2102-79, was removed $40 from the Consent Calendar for separate consideration. MOTION SECONDED AND APPROVED UNANIMOUSLY: It was moved by Commissioner Stewart and seconded by Commissioner Dochnahl that the remaining item on the Consent Calendar, the Minutes of September 12, be approved as submitted. Tentative MapAcceptance Lands of Phitbrick, File #TM2102-79: After a short discussion nn �ahether the Planning Commission was obliged to accept for filing the proposed tentative map when it was their feeling that the map was in contradiction to Town ordinances, the following motion was passed: MOTION SECONDED AND PASSED UNANIMOUSLY: It was moved by Commissioner Stewart and seconded by Commissioner Lachenbruch that the Planning Commission not accept the Tentative Map for filing for the Lands of Philbrick, File #TM 2102-79, until a legal opinion is obtained from the City Attorney, and also that the map be re -scheduled for another Subdivision Committee meeting if the City Attorney feels it is necessary. PUBLIC HEARINGS: 1. LANDS OF STEERS, File #TM 2087-771 Central and Buena Vista Drives, G. Nolte and Associates, Engineers, Request for Recommendation of Approval of Negative Declaration and Resubmitted Tentative Map and Circulation Study for the Buena Vista Drive Area: Commissioner Lachenbruch excused himself from the public hearing on the above request because he lives on the same private road as the applicant. Maury Abraham, Georqe Nolte and Associates, Enqineer for the Applicant, requested a continuance of the Lands of Steers because he ad not received the letter dated September 21 from the Town requesting certain changes in the Tentative Map. City Engineer John Carlson felt that the request could be considered, as the changes required were of a minor nature. Commissioner Lachenbruch, speakino as a citizen, PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES - September 26, 1979 Page two V PUBLIC HEARINGS: (continued) 1. LANDS OF STEERS, File #TM 2087-77: (continued) concurred with Mr. Carlson, and noted that all the changes required were listed in the City Engineer's letter. MOTION SECONDED AND DEFEATED: It was moved by Commissioner Stewart, seconded by Commissioner Carico, and failed that the Lands of Steers, File #TM 2087-77, be post- poned until plans were complete. AYES: Commissioners Carico and Stewart NOES: Commissioners vanTamelen, Rydell, Dochnahl, Kuranoff ABSTAIN: Commissioner Lachenbruch (Present but not voting) Mr. Carlson reviewed information from the August 22 staff report concerning the Lands of Steers and then recommended that the Planning Commission hold a public hearing to consider the Negative Declaration. Thereafter, the public hearing was opened. Jerr Metz er, 11620 Buena Vista Drive, noted that the map showed access to the proposed deve opment from Moody Road, and that no access was permitted from this road. He stated that the proposed subdivision of the acreage was forcing high intensity develop- ment in the area, and that the development of Lot 1 would wipe out views of adjacent neighbors. He complained that the constraints on development permitted only a narrow portion of the lot for locating the residence; and finally, requested that an environ- mental impact be required for the present request. 1r Maur Abraham, Engineer, referred to cross-sections to demonstrate the effect of building heig ti—T on the Metzger residence, stating that a residence would be well below the Metzger's view line. GIP�n Tayor l, 27863 Moody Road, expressed concern that a building on the Lands of Steers lot would affect his view. Ramesh Joshi, 1785 Granger Avenue, Los Altos, prospective buyer for the subdivided Steers ot, as ed t at t e Negative Dec aratlpn be approved, noting that the building of one more house in the area will not affect the environment and questioning how the addition of one dwelling would affect the view of the bay as stated by others speaking against the Negative Declaration. Jac uith Metzger, 11620 Buena Vista Drive, asked that the proposed residence be lowered in avor of %r! 620 the view of surrounding neighbors and stated that putting a house on the proposed location would create a cluster housing effect in the most rural, north- western part of the Town. Mr. Carlson discussed for the Commission the reasons that their originally approved Steers subdivision had been returned to the Planning Commission. Among the reasons cited were that the original map required too many conditional exceptions, that a traffic circulation was needed for the area of Buena Vista, and that the future develop- ment of the area needed to be shown. He noted that with the present submittal, the lot size has been increased and no conditional exceptions are being requested. Mr. Carlson added that the current map conforms to the General Plan. 40 Commissioner Carico pointed out the need to obtain a legal and technical definition as to how far the environment can be considered in regard to human beings, and how far the Town can penalize a property owner in order to conserve a view. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES - September 26, 1979 Page three PUBLIC HEARINGS: (continued) 1. LANDS OF STEERS, File #TM 2087-77: (continued) The public hearing was closed, discussion concluded, and the following motion passed: MOTION SECONDED AND PASSED: It was moved by Commissioner vanTamelen, seconded by Commissioner Dochnahl, and carried that the Negative Declaration for the Lands of Steers, File #TM 2087-77, be recommended for approval, with the following mitigating measures: 1) Conservation Easements, and 2) Limitation of the height of the structure and the location of the building envelope on Lot 1 to mitigate visual impact on neighbors. Consideration turned to the Tentative Map, with Mr. Carlson again reviewing the back- ground of the subject request. He noted that the original map had been denied without prejudice by the City Council because Lot 1 was one-hundredth of an acre short of conformance with slope density requirements and because the Council did not wish to grant the conditional exceptions requested. Also, Council requested that a circulation study be made of the Buena Vista Drive area to consider establishing a precise plan line for Buena Vista Drive. He noted that staff had determined that no changes were needed in the circulation patterns in the area since very little additional traffic would be generated by this and the remaining subivision in the area. Commissioner Stewart questioned Mr. Carlson on why, in Condition 7(d), he had recommended the improvement of Buena Vista Drive to Town standards, while it was his understanding t that curbs and gutters were not the most desirable development for the road. After a �r short discussion among Commissioners and staff on the ultimate subdivision of the remain- ing Steers property, the hearing was opened to the public discussion. Maury Abraham, Engineer, requested that Condition 3.A on undergrounding be deferred unti the rest of t e property is subdivided; that the conservation easement in Condition I.0 be deferred until the rest of the property is subdivided; however, he asked that if the conservation easement is required that well and water rights be reserved for Mr. Steers; finally, he asked that the previous condition on the improve- ment of Beuna Vista Drive be substituted for Condition 7.D, as Mr. Steers wished to keep Buena Vista Drive as much as possible as it is. Jerry Metzger, 11620 Buena Vista Drive, said that a cluster,high-density development would occur because of the restrictions placed on the development of Lot 1, discussed the narrow strip of land between Lots 1 and 2, questioned the future subdivision and installation of utilities and noted that the plan for future subdivision puts the Planning Commission in a box, questioned the inclusion of the narrow strip of land between Lots 1 and 2 in slope density requirements and noted he was against taking slices off portions of land. Other items noted were that Condition 4.B limiting the area of the drainfield would further tighten the building envelope, how would the owner participate in a maintenance agreement, were there fire hazard problems on the road, that the aerial map was misleading, what impact would the pathway have on the area, that the subdivision does not provide a wholesome environment, that the lot was not adequately designed, that the street right-of-way was not in the best interests of the Town, that the lot is not in harmony with the other lots in the Carea, that he and other neighbors in the area had written letters against the develop - 4W ment, and finally, that they were disappointed with the development and recommended against its being approved. Finally, he asked that the applicant be required to underground public utility lines. 4W C7 V PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES - September 26, 1979 Page four PUBLIC HEARINGS: (continued) 1. LANDS OF STEERS, File NTM 2087-77: (continued) Glen Taylor, 27863 Mood Road, noted his concurrence with Mr. Metzger's remarks on Re e tota eve dopment of the area, said that larger rather than smaller lots should be encouraged in the area and referred to his August 31 letter to the Planning Commission regarding this matter. He expressed concern on the increased fire hazard in the area, spoke against the City Engineer's recommendations on the circulation in the area, and requested that a turn -around be installed to handle traffic on Buena Vista. Mar Taylor, 26861 Moody Road, spoke for requiring utilities to be undergrounded and pointed out that t e Tay ors and Metzgers had undergrounded utility lines on their properties by choice. Art Lachenbruch, 11820 Buena Vista Drive, pointed out the unfairness of criticism directed at Mr. Steers for creating a one and two-thirds acre parcel on Lot 1 of his subdivision when Mr. Taylor on roughly the same area of land has one of the most densely developed lots in the area, as it contains a secondary primary dwelling and a barn converted into a dwelling. The two buildings exist on the same property without the benefit of subdivision. Mr. Lachenbruch pointed out that the barn would not be permitted under present ordinances, and also that it does not conform to setback requirements. Mr. Lachenbruch commended the City Engineer on his recommendations on Buena Vista Drive. He noted that Mr. Taylor does not live on Buena Vista Drive and disagreed with his recommendations that there was need for a turn -around on the road. As to the subdivision itself, Mr. Lachenbruch asked that approval of the present Steers request not be construed as tacit approval of the further subdivision shown on Sheet 4 of the map. He spoke against Condition 6(a), recommending instead that an in -lieu fee be charged; spoke against Condition 7(d), recommendinq that the previously approved condition on the road be substituted; and spoke against the underarounding requirement on the basis that undergrounding would encourage further development. (-L 11/,'% Ramesh Joshi, 1785 Granger Avenue, pointed to the cost involved in undergrounding, pointinn nut the greater expense of -the Steers undergrounding as opposed to that done by the Metzqers and Taylors. The public hearing was closed, and discussion returned to the Commissioners. Com- missioner Dochnahl asked that maps be corrected (both the main map and the aerial map) to reflect the true location of his property line adjacent to the Steers property. Thereafter, the following motions were passed: Condition 1.C: PASSED BY CONSENSUS: To amend Condition 1.0 by adding: Well, pump rights, pump house and appropriate hardware are reserved for the use of the owner. Condition 3.A: Remains as written. CONDITION SECONDED AND FAILED: It was moved by Commissioner Stewart and seconded by Commissioner Dochnahl that Con- dition 3.A be changed to read: The existing overhead utilities within the property shall be placed underground upon any future subdivision of of Parcel A. Parcel A and Lot 1 shall share proportionately in the cost of this undergrounding, and an agreement to this effect shall be negotiated between the owner of Parcel A and the owner or successive owners of Lot 1. The agreement shall be approved by the City Attorney. AYES: Commissioners Stewart and Kuranoff NOES: Commissioners vanTamelen, Carico, Rydell ABSTAIN: Commissioner Dochnahl (Commissioner Lachenbruch is listed as present at the voting.) PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES - September 26, 1979 Page five PUBLIC HEARINGS: (continued) 1. LANDS OF STEERS, File NTM 2087-77: (continued) Condition 4.A: PASSED BY CONSENSUS: To change the first two words of the condition to read: 'Lot 1...' instead of "This lot...". Condition 4.B: PASSED BY CONSENSUS: To amend Condition 4.B by changing "Three Forks Lane" at the end of the sentence to 'Buena Vista Drive'. Condition 6.A: MOTION SECONDED AND CARRIED: It was moved by Commissioner Kuranoff and seconded by Commissioner Stewart to delete Condition 6.A. All Commissioners voted for the passage of the motion. Commissioner Lachenbruch was present. Condition 7.A: MOTION SECONDED AND CARRIED: It was moved by Commissioner Stewart and seconded by Commissioner vanTamelen to amend Condition 7.A by adding the sentence: There must also be an agreement between the present owner and the buyer of Lot 1, subject to the approval of the City Attorney. All Commissioners voted for the passage of this motion. Commissioner Lachenbruch was present. The above motion was passed after discussion on the possibility of obtaining an agreement to provide maintenance for Ruena Vista Drive and the ability of the Town to enforce such an agreement. Condition 7.B: MOTION SECONDED AND CARRIED: It was moved by Commissioner Kuranoff and seconded by Commissioner Carico to replace Condition 7.B with the following: The owner of Lot 1 shall locate his residence, limit its height, and provide landscaping for purposes of mitigating the visual impact of the new residence from off site. All Commissioners voted for the passage of this motion. Commissioner Lachenbruch was present. Commissioners vanTamelen asked that the following be included as comments from the Commission: Commissioner vanTamelen recommends that this condition be strengthened some. Condition 7.C: PASSED BY CONSENSUS: To amend Condition 7.0 to read: The owner of Lot 1 shall provide landscaping for purposes of mitigating visual impact of the new residence as viewed from off the site. Condition 7.D: PASSED BY CONSENSUS: To replace Condition 7.D with Condition 1.B of the previously approved list of conditions, namely: The owner shall be granted a Conditional Exception for the improvement of Buena Vista Drive. The owner shall install oil and screenings with 6" base rock 12' wide. All cut and fill slopes shall be rounded,as directed by the City Enqineer,to blend into the natural slope. The possibility of requiring a turn -around on Buena Vista Drive was discussed, and Commissioner Kuranoff noted that the Fire Department had required a turn -around in front of his house. He recommended against asking for a turn -around as it had become a "wonderful place to park". The consensus was to leave Buena Vista Drive as it is. Condition 7.E: MOTION SECONDED AND FAILED: It was moved by Commissioner vanTamelen and seconded by Commissioner Carico to add as Condition 7.E: Approval PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES - September 26, 1979 Page six PUBLIC HEARINGS: (continued) 1. LANDS OF STEERS, File #TM 2087-77: (continued) Condition 7.E: of this subdivision does not in any way imply approval of the further subdivision of the property. AYES: Commissioners vanTamelen, Carico NOES: Commissioners Rydell, Stewart, Dochnahl, Kuranoff ABSTAIN: Commissioner Lachenbruch (present) MOTION SECONDED AND PASSED: It was moved by Commissioner Dochnahl and seconded by Commissioner Carico to recommend approval of the Lands of Steers, File #TM 2087-77, with conditions as amended. All Commissioners voted for the recommendation of approval. Commissioner Lachenbruch was present. The Lands of Steers discussion and vote being concluded, Commissioner Lachenbruch returned to the Commission desk. 2. BERRY HILL FARMS, INC., File #CU 8028-77, 14250 Page Mill Road, D. Ahlgren, Engineer, Request for Amendment of Conditional Use Permit: Assistant Planner Pat Webb discussed the above request, calling attention to the fact that the Fire Department had consented to waive the requirement for sprinklers in the new barn at the request of the applicant. She noted that no further approval would be needed from Site Development unless grading or drainage problems occurred. Commissioners discussed landscaping, and it was the consensus that no landscaping would be needed for the metal barn to be constructed. GreHawkins, 14250 Pa e Mill Road, discussed the request and the landscaping that is in existence at t e site. MOTION SECONDED AND PASSED UNANIMOUSLY: It was moved by Commissioner Stewart and seconded by Commissioner Kuranoff to recommend approval of the amendment to the Conditional Use Permit, with Condition 10. In addition, Condition 10 was to be amended with the following sentence: This requirement shall not be instituted for a period of five years, as per letters from the Los Altos Fire Department dated September 26 and applicant Alan Lambert dated September 24, 1979. At 10:45 a recess was called; the meeting resumed at 10:55 p.m. 3. TENNIS COURT POLICY, Consideration of Suggestions and Comments from the Citizens and Residents of Los Altos Hills to Assist in Formulating Recommendations to the City Council to Establish a Policy Concerning Tennis Courts within the Town: Chairman vanTamelen reviewed pertinent background information on the reasons for the public hearing. She noted that in preserving the General Plan and Town Ordinances, there were aspects to consider on Tennis Courts. They were: 1) The privacy of other people, the visual (fences) and noise; 2) Grading problems that can occur ; 3) The need for limiting impervious surfaces. She noted that the Town was established as a transition town between the mountains and urban areas, and the public hearing was to determine whether 1972-73 policies on tennis courts should be changed. 4 Pat Webb discussed the summary she had prepared of the mail -in survey. Commissioners asked questions on the tally. Commissioner vanTamelen wondered if those favoring re- laxation of tennis court policies were persons who had tennis courts on properties adjacent to them. Commissioner Kuranoff asked about comments made on limited grading or disruption of tennis courts. He also questioned what setback policies were in PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES - September 26, 1979 Page seven `,. PUBLIC HEARINGS: (continued) 3. TENNIS COURT POLICY: (continued) other communities, particularly Portola Valley. There being no further comment from the Commissioners, the hearing was opened to the public discussion. Ra Crouch, Encino,ecomCalifornia, thought tennis court regulations for Los Altos Hills were fine, but rmen e getting a consensus from neighbors on whether a tennis court should be installed. He observed that tennis courts should be considered on an individual basis and that they enhance the value of the property. B.L.Pfefer, Noise Abatement Committee, said that he was in favor of the current policy on tennis courts, and t at it s ou d not be changed. He said that tennis courts should be developed on preserve areas away from living areas. Problems noted with tennis courts were gradina, water absorption, and noise. Exceptions might be considered when lots back up to the freeway area. Commissioner Rydell asked that the Noise Abatement Committee attempt to measure the noise factor of the tennis ball hitting the racket at different distances from the tennis court, that Council had discussed this issue, and he wanted to make sure that every aspect of the tennis court policy had been considered, Commissioner Carico added to this study on noise and tennis courts that there were certain areas in the Town were noise has a big impact and others where noise is not a large factor. CCommissioner Carico noted that tennis courts cause problems in the Town. There have fir' been instances where neighbors had agreed to have a variance for a tennis court and then later they changed their minds, In other cases, all neighbors but a next door neighbor agreed that a tennis court was acceptable. Irma Goldsmith, 27330- Elena Road, noted that the Town could avoid many problems if it a i ed y its ru es, enera y, she spoke for the control of tennis courts. She stated that she loves tennis, but tennis was taking people away from the land. She noted the problem of noise with tennis courts, and asked about the possibility of people wanting tennis courts floating a bond and constructing courts near the Little League field. She expressed a preference for clay tennis courts over paved courts. Dr. Steven Binder, Catherine Court, was generally for the tennis court policy, but notted t—Tiat the Town sFou d const er each individual case, He was against hard, fast rules; and noted that the Town should abolish the variance request if it insisted on finding a hardship for the granting of the variance. He felt that rather than having to prove a hardship in order to obtain a variance for a tennis court, a conditional use permit should be obtained for a tennis court. At 11:55 p,m., Commissioner Kuranoff left the meeting. Commissioner Lachenbruch. questioned Dr. Binder about his feeling about tennis courts on the property line. Dr. Binder responded to Commissioner Lachenbruch by notion that tennis courts on t e property line should be screened, that tennis courts should be judged on an individual basis, and that the area that tennis courts back up on should be taken into consideration. He was not in favor of the public courts recommended by Mrs. Goldsmith. The hour being 11:56 P.m— it was the consensus of the Commission that the meeting continue after the hour of adjournment. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES - September 26, 1979 Page eight PUBLIC HEARINGS: (continued) 3. TENNIS COURTS: (continued) Commissioner Stewart commented on the policy of variances. He reviewed past events such as the Lands of Aveni where tennis courts were built without the benefit of the variance procedure and then was permitted to keep the court. He recommended the consideration of each individual case on its own merits if the variance process was to be retained and the present tennis court policy retained. He pointed up various areas and and requests for tennis courts in the Town that appeared to be in conflict with present Town policies, for example, he noted that the Berger subdivision was not a "rural" development as defined by the Town; and that all the neighbors had been in favor of the Chu tennis court, but it was turned down because of conflict with Town policy. He pointed up the need for maintaining a flexible attitude when requests were made for exceptions to the rules. Commissioner Carico raised the issue of the possibility of a great increase in tennis courts in the Town, and noted that the issue before the Commission or the Town was whether the Town really desired that kind of development. Tom L nch, 25701 Lomita Linda Court, spoke generally for the relaxation of the tennis court po icy in regards to grading and drainage problems, noting that if people are not allowed to have tennis courts,they might opt for a more unsightly and destructive (to the land) type of court for a sports activity. In response to a question from Commissioner vanTamelen, he noted that if a soils investigation determined that a tennis court could be built without damaging grading, then the Commission should seriously consider the matter. He noted that large cuts could be screened with appropriate landscaping. Ralph Ol dscraw, Taaffe Lane, stated he was a tennis buff, and called attention to the problems of living next to a tot with a corral. He recommended that tennis courts receive as much consideration as corrals, stated that some rules were needed, and generally supported the six foot limitation on grading. He supported appropriate landscaping, and noted that the ppohibition of lighting kept night noises down. He pointed to the lack of recreational facilities in Los Altos Hills, and noted that the Town should be thinking about recreational facilities. Some rules should be made, but requests for exceptions should be considered on an individual basis. The public hearing was closed, and discussion returned to the Planning Commission. Commissioner Stewart responded to the need for another volunteer on the Tennis Court Subcommittee, and Commissioner Rydell promised that this Subcommittee would meet, discuss recommendations made, and report back by the next Planning Commission meeting. NEW BUSINESS: 1. Setting of Public Hearings: It was the consensus that the following matters would be considered at the public hearing on October 10: 1) Lands of Melchor, File NTM 2100-79, and 2) Lands of Adobe Creek, File NCU 8037-79. 2. Report from City Council Meetina of September 19, 1979:Commissioner Kuranoff was not present to report on the City Council meeting. ADJOURNMENT: There being no further new or old business, the meeting was adjourned at 12:30 a.m. by the Chairman. Respectfully submitted, Ethel Hopkins Carratary