Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout02/25/1981PLANNING COMIIISSION Town of Los Altos Hills 26379 Fremont Road Los Altos Hills, California MINUTES OF A REGULAR MEETING Wednesday, February 25, 1981 Reel 91, Side I, Tract I, 200 -End; Side II, Tract II, 000-200 The meeting of the Planning Commission 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, Kuranoff, Lachenbruch, Rydell, Stewart, vanTamelen Absent: Commissioner Docbnahl (excused absence) Also Present: John A. Carlson City Engineer/Planner; Leslie Penfold Secretary CONSENT CALENDAR: The Planning Commission and Variance and Permit Commission Minutes of February 11, 1981 were removed for corrections as follows: 1) Variance and Permit: Commissioner Carico stated that on page one, the following should be added: Commissioner Carico was concerned with the sight and safety of the swimming pool, if placed to the side of the residence. 2) Planning Commission: 1) On page two, regarding fence conditions for the Lands of Abrahams, replace the word "reference line" with "right-of-way"; 2) On page three, item #3 replace "for approval" with "approved". It was passed by consensus to approve the minutes of February 11, 1981 as amended. REPORT FROM CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF FEBRUARY 18, 1981: Commissioner Carico reported that the Path and Trail Element was continued to correct grammatical errors and inconsistancies; the City Council upheld the Variance and Permit's decision on the Lands of Sokoloff Variance application; she also indicated that Mrs. vanTamelen had resigned from the Town Newsletter and had submitted a policy to be followed. PUBLIC HEARINGS: 1) Lands of Los Altos Hills, PM# 1-81, General Plan Amendment Mr. Carlson indicated to Planning Commission that they should recommend to the City Council, to approve the Negative Declaration and adoption of General Plan Amendment. Mr. Carlson reviewed his staff report of February 20, 1981 noting that the current zoning for this land is a mixture of RIA, (single family resi- dential, 1 acre minimum), and institutional use, designated as elementary school. Commissioner vanTamelen, questioned Item #8 of the Agreement between the Palo Alto School District and the Town, (Naylor Act). Mr. Carlson informed the Com- mission that when a school sells property; Open Space must be incorporated into the development of the property. The Public Hearing was then opened. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES - FEBRUARY 25, 1981 PAGE TWO Having received no comments from the general public, the public hearing was then closed and Commissioners Degan discussion of the Negative Declaration. ` MOTION SECONDED AND APPROVED UNANIMOUSLY: It was moved by Commissioner Kuranoff and seconded by Commissioner Stewart to approve the Negative Declaration for the Lands of Los Altos Hills, File #PM 1-81. Commissioners reviewed the General Plan Amendment, as prepared by staff, Exhibit #'s 6 and 7. MOTION SECONDED AND PASSED BY CONSENSUS: It was moved by Commissioner Stewart and seconded by Commissioner Kuranoff to leave in under section "Standards", Item # l.a., as follows: Palo Alto Unified School District - Optimum Elemen- tary School Size (K-6): 500-600 students, 10 usable acres. Commissioners discussed and reviewed the wording of the amendment of the General Plan. MOTION SECONDED AND PASSED BY CONSENSUS: It was moved by Commissioner Kuranoff and seconded by Commissioner Lachenbruch to recommend approval to the City Council of a General Plan Amendment to read as follows: This amendment deletes the school site designation from the 59 acre Page Mill Road parcel. To maintain equivalent open space and recreational amenities, the ten (10) acres previously allocated to the school site should be assigned to open space and conservation easements and distributed among the residential lots. This acreage assigned to easements shall be in excess of that required by slope density and shall be included in residential lots. The easements should be selected to facilitate scenic trails and preserve natural beauty. ` It was passed by consensus to approve the Resolution, approving the amendment to the Land use Element of the General Plan. OLD BUSINESS 1. Arastradero Road - Zoning Change: Commissioner vanTamelen indicated that she had spoken with Mr. Joe Seiger and at this time there should be no action by the Planning Commission. She also noted that Syntex is planning dwellings for their employees and so far that is agreeable with adjacent neighbors. 2. Arastradero Road Horse Trail - Mr. Carlson informed the Commission that the pathway chairman, Fran Stevenson, has inspected the trail with the City of Palo Alto and it is acceptable, (the trail is at the top of the ridge). 3. Secondary Dwellings - Commissioners discussed the proposed changes to the Ordinance making minor changes to the draft. Staff was directed to check with other cities, "Similar to Los Altos Hills", on their procedures and ordinances regarding secondary dwellings. After this information is ob- tained, the item will be heard before the Planning Commission. Commissioner Kuranoff left the meeting at 10:00 P.M. WORKSHOP: Commissioner vanTamelen had prepared a list of pending items for the workshop discussion. Commissioners reviewed each item, the following is an update of each: 1. Housing Element Revision - Commission decided to wait until Mr. Mader and Mr. Spangle prepared a report for review by the Town. 2. Drainage Committee - There still are drainage problems throughout the Town, although with the proposed development intensity ordinance, most problems PLANNING CONU41SSION MINUTES - FEBRUARY 25, 1981 PAGE THREE would be taken care of, there would be technical concerns that would be handled at the engineering stage of a project. Mr. Carlson noted that he will be receiving information on the County Land Erosion Project "Evergreen Conservation Area", and will inform Planning Commission on any additional information. 3. Conservation Easements - Mrs. Carico indicated that at one time, Alex Russell (former City Engineer), had prepared a list of allowable uses within a conservation ease- ment. Staff will look into this subject and return to the Commission when available. 4. Roads and Right of Way Standards - A committee of Commissioner Lachenbruch and Rydell will meet to discuss ideas with Public Works Committee and Public Safety Committee and then give the information to Mr. Carlson for preparation of new standards for the Town. 5. Obtrusive Housing - The proposed development intensity ordinance will be of help to this problem. Commissioner vanTamelen will meet with Mr. Paul Reneau to discuss his ideas. 6. Alternate Energy Sources - Commissioner vanTamelen suggested that Commissioner Kuranoff look further into this subject. 7. Ridge Line Control - Ms. Webb and Commissioner vanTamelen will meet with Mr. Mader to set-up guidelines on this item. 8. Open Space and Conservation Study - The need for a committee is no longer necessary. 9. Inconsistancy in granting of Variances - Commissioner Stewart will look into this item. 6 0. Grading - Site Development, (how much is too much?) - Mr. Carlson will meet with Commissioners to further clarification. 11. Woodside Ordinance on epoxy base driveways - Pathway Committee has been concerned with this epoxy base because it has caused accidents with horses slipping on the slick pavement. Staff will check into this and return to the Commission. 12. lo' of grading within property line for driveways - Mr. Carlson will check into this subject and return to Commission. 13. Storage of recreational vehicles - Staff is directed to prepare a proposed ordinance for storage of recreational vehicles, outside the setback lines and shall be requested to screen. There being no further new or old business, the meeting was adjourned at 11:15 p.m. Respectfully Submitted, Leslie Penfold Engineering/Planning Secretary QUESTIONS FOR THE WORKSHOP Long-range planning: 1. What is the next step in dealing with the mandated housing element revision? 2. Should the following committees with unfinished business be retained? And if so, do you have any suggestions for changes in membership obi for actions they should take? A. Drainage --investigation of the problem, search for remedies (Lachenbruch, van Tamelen) B. Conservation easements --criteria for selection, permitted uses, enforcement and control during development and after (Carico, Dochnahl, van Tamelen) C. Roads and right-of-way standards --goals, rewriting of "yellow Book," relation to paths and driveways (Kuranoff, Lachenbruch, Rydell) 3. Is there still a problem of obtrusive houses? A. Should we have a committee appointed to consider design review? B. Would you like to hear a speaker from a lending institution? Any other speaker? 4. Should we look into the encouragement of alternate energy souces and the control of the design of them? Are you willing to serve on such a committee? s. Do you feel the need for ridge line control? If yes, do you think we are at a committee stage, a staff stage, or a consultant stage? 6. The 1978 Task Force suggested an open space study. (Relation between Open Space and conservation easements. Policy on ownership --should it be part of lots, Town, MPRPD, private body or other? Relation to development credit. Legal and other incentives for encouraging by dedication, donations, land banking, etc. Identification of particular areas to be left open, such as drainage swales, waterways, natural corridors for wild life, etc. Role of Williamson Act and Chapter 6.6) Is ibis, in your opinion, a matter we should get into? How? 7. There has been some inconsistency in the granting of Permits and Variances, particularly in areas abutting different zoning. Is there a need to clarify our policy? 8. Site Development considers grading. What are our standards and guidelines? 9. A new driveway material which causes horses to slip is being used. Woodside has an ordinance against this. Would you like staff to investigate? 10. Can you think of any other activity we should be involved in for the betterment of our Town? Evaluation of planning: 1. What has been our most successful effort? (What is your favorite area of the Town?) What specific items contribute to its success? 2. Where did we fail? (What is the worst area of the Town?) Why? 3. Can a formal procedure for evaluation be devised? 4. Would a field trip be of value?