Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout11/01/1979PLANNING COMMISSION A Town of Los Altos Hills 26379 Fremont Road Les Altos Hills, California MINUTES OF A STUDY SESSION Thursday, November 1, 1979 Chairman vanTamelen called the Study Session to order in the Committee Room of the Town Hall at 7:25 p.m. ROLL CALL: Present: Commissioners vanTamelen, Lachenbruch, Rydell, Stewart, Dochnahl Absent: Commissioners Carico and Kuranoff Also Present: Ethel Hopkins, Secretary; Mrs. Mary Stutz, Pathway Committee Commissioners discussed the following matters during the Study Session: I. Do we have any fution outside the Town? Commissioners generally felt that it was important for tnche Town to be informed on developments in surrounding or adjacent areas. Examples of land areas that could affect the Town of Los Altos Hills were: development of the Neary property, the widening of Arastradero Road, and the development of the Semas property. It was pointed out, however, that the City Manager had been informed on many of these issues and had pointed out the need for Town involvement when appropriate. Commissioners noted that the Town should understand its contribution to the quality of life on the mid -peninsula and its relationship to adjacent communities. Ways suggested to accomplish more involvement with surrounding areas were: 1)To request the County to send Minutes and Agendas of their meetings to Chairman van Tamelen; 2) Once a quarter or semi-annually to have a Planning Consultant such as the Mader firm address the Planning Commission on developments in adjacent or surrounding communities that could affect Los Altos Hills. Matters that might be covered could be changes in zoning that might be contemplated, impending development and recent legal action; 3) That the City Attorney keep the Town informed on decisions in court cases. Chairman vanTamelen promised to check with the City Manager on how the Commission .could obtain the helptheyfelt was necessary on these matters. II. How are we doin within the Town? Are we functioningas well as we can? How is our re ations ip with the Counci ? Commissioner Dochnahl stated that the Planning Commission should be considered more as a partner with the City Council than it is. He felt that many requests for work were made by the City Council to the Planning Commission on very short notice. Commissioners felt that the Planning Commission representative should comment more at the City Council Meetings, and the Planning Commission representative should comment earlier in the Planning Commission meeting. The agenda item should be titled "Council Comment", and this item should be listed earlier on the Planning Commission agenda. The secretary was requested to provide a short summary for the City Council representative of items discussed at the Planning Commission meeting, and the majority as well as the minority reasons for votes should be included. The secretary's report should also be sent to the City Council. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES - November 1, 1979 Page two II. How are we doing within the Town? Are we functioningas well as we can? How is our relationship with the Council?continued Commissioner Lachenbruch expressed the need for the City Council to send a repre- sentative to the Planning Commission meetings. He agreed to make this request to the City Council. Consensus among Commissioners was to use the Planning Commission Representative method of communicating with the City Council more effectively, and that Commissioner Lachenbruch would make an oral request for City Council attendance at Commission meetings as soon as practicable. III. Interaction with Committees: It was noted that Commissioner Carico had consented to be a liaison wit the Pathway Committee for the Planning Commission. Mrs. Stutz, Pathway Committee, reviewed Jean Struthers' role with the County and interaction with the Mid-peninsula Regional Park District. She reviewed some of the problems of interacting with the County. She noted that the Pathway Committee should have Parlier notification of Subdivision Committee meetings. Commissioner Dochnahl felt that Standing Committees should be a "strong right- arm of the Planning Commission". In discussion of the relationship of Committees to the Planning Commission, it was the consensus that Standing Committees should give reports of their activities, and at the time of reporting the Planning Commission and Committees give consideration on how they might work together. Commissioner Rydell asked for a copy of the latest organization chart. Commissioner vanTamelen suggested that pathways should be drawn on the Tentative Map and if there are any problems with the grading for paths, that this should also be noted. She asked that the City Engineer's attention be drawn to this request. Commissioner Dochnahl noted that he and Commissioner Carico were to meet with the Pathway Committee and iron out objectives and priorities with them. IV. Planning Commission Committees: Commissioner vanTamelen felt that the Subdivision Committee was functioning well. On the matter of finding substitutes for Commissioners unable to attend meetings, she volunteered to substitute almost any time. It was noted that notices of missed meetings were to be sent out to the Planning Commission Chairman for both Subdivision and Site Development meetings. Commissioner Dochnahl noted that he would willingly be a substitute for Committee meetings, but he must be given adequate time to inspect the proposed site. The Commissioners agreed that it was important to notify adjacent neighbors for Site Development. Commissioner vanTamelen agreed to write a letter to the Council requesting that this be done. Chairman vanTamelen proposed that an agenda item for the Planning Commission be a report from the Variance and Permit Commission on what happened at that meeting, and that all Commissioners receive a copy of the Minutes of that meeting. Commissioners were in agreement that this should be done. 6 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES - November 1, 1979 Page three V. Pl annin Commission MeetingProcedures: Commissioners commended Chairman vanTamelen on er war as Planet ng Commission Chairman. VI. Could the Commission do a better bb? It was agreed that with Mr. Mader's help, t e omm ssion cou d do a Better Jo . VII. Are we addressing the proper issues? Commissioners discussed the following opmcs an ma a omml ee assignmen s to complete studies on them: ** A. Secondary dwellings: It was the general feeling of the Commissioners that the Planning Commission should not have to police secondary dwellings to ensure that conditions were enforced. This was a staff job. The Commisssion also felt a sense of frustration and powerlessness on the matter of the Stamschror-Silver secondary dwelling use permit, and they requested that this matter be included on the next agenda for discussion. Commissioners Carico and Stewart* were to continue their committee assignments on secondary dwellings. The suggestions were made that the Committee might detine 'kitchens' for secondary dwellings and also to find a mechanism for requiring that if a parcel consisted of two or more acres, a secondary dwelling would be located on the subdividable portion of the parcel. B. Conservation easements: A conservation easement policy was greatly needed, and Commissioner Dochnahl pointed out that it was not a good policy to completely deny the property owner the use of his property in conservation easements. . Commissioners assigned to this Committee were: Commissioners Carico*, Dochnahl and vanTamelen. The question of whether a Committee is needed for Open Space was mentioned, but no decision was made on this matter. It was pointed out that Mr. Mader's help was needed in this area because people were too busy to get things done. C. Marginal lots Committee: Commissioners Lachenbruch and vanTamelen* D. Roads: Commissioners Kuranoff*,Lachenbruch, Rydell E. House size and design: Commissioners Kuranoff and Rydell* Ideas for con- sideration by this committee were the need for homes for larger families as well as the need for small .homes, limitation of the size of the house on the lot, the potential for design control, dimensional setbacks, and the effect of financial institutions in creating large houses. F. Light p�Oi�l,ution: Commissioners Kuranoff* and vanTamelen Commissioner Stewart Suggest that Commissioner Kuranoff investigate PG&E's regulations and provisions for safety lighting. He noted that too much light was a problem with lighting. G. Solar Panels: Commissioners Kuranoff and vanTamelen* H. Fences: Commissioner vanTamelen reported, that six people had written about their concern for ugly fences when they had turned in their tennis court survey sheets. Commissioners Dochnahl* and Rydell were listed as Committee members. I. Committee on Polic and Definitions for Net and Gross Acrea e: Commissioner ac en ruc reported tat GeUnCl man er ins was going to worK on this, but that no action or decisions have been made so far. No further assignments were made J. Focused Studies: Commissioner vanTamelen asked about grading, noting that there was no ordinance on grading. She asked about a definition of excessive grading. Another area needing clarification of policy was driveways. However, no further action was taken to set up committees on these matters. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES - November 1, 1979 Page four VII. Are we addressing the proper issues? (continued) K. Tennis Courts: Commissioners Rydell*, Stewart and vanTamelen Consensus of the Commissioners was that Mr. Mader's help should be requested in dealing with the tennis court issue and with drafting of a policy state- ment on tennis courts. The Committee and Mr. Mader should examine the issues from every angle, i.e., as tennis courts affect the community, how they are affected by the General Plan, grading, etc. Commissioner vanTamelen promised to speak with the City Manager on obtainingprofessional help (specifically Mr. Mader) to address this issue. VIII. How is the Town doing? What ordinances need re -working? Ordinances or subjects w ere further code revisions might e needed reviewed under Item VII. J. above. General Plan: As it was noted that the General Plan is currently under review yl�ader and Associates, no decision was made on any annual review of the General Plan. IX. ADJOURNMENT: As no discussion took place on what Commissioners felt that their accomplishments were during their Planning Commission terms, the Planning Commission Chairman adjourned the Study Session at 10:00 p.m. Respectfully submitted Ethel Hopkins Planning Secretary * In item VII, one asterisk refers to the Chairman of the Committee named. ** In item VII, two asterisks refer to the January 26, 1979 memo on Commission Assignments for Action Items•(Some changes were made on Committee assignments.)