Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout03/25/1981�w 6 PLANNING COMMISSION Town of Los Altos Hills 26379 Fremont Road Los Altos Hills, California MINUTES OF A REGULAR MEETING Wednesday, March 25, 1981 Reel 91, Side III Tract II, 200 -End; Reel 92, Side 1, Tract 111 000-495 The meeting of the Planning Commission was called ot order by Chairman vanTamelen at 7:50 p.m. in the Council Chambers of the Town Hall. ROLL CALL: Present: Commissioners Dochnabl, Kuranoff, Lachenbruch, Rydell, StewaTt, vanTamelen Absent: Commissioner Carico (excused absence) Also Present: City Engineer/Planner John A. Carlson, Assistant Planner Pat Webb, Secretary Leslie Penfold PRESS: Flo Palokoff, Los Altos Town Crier CONSENT CALENDAR: The Planning Commission minutes for February 25, 1981 were removed for minor corrections: 1. On page two, 6th paragraph, second sentence, after... parcel replace comma with a period. Capitalize To ... ; after ... amenities place a comma; change The to small 'It". 2. Under "Old Business", 1) zoning change, add 'In" to spoke. 2) Horse Trail, add'it�'to is acceptable. It should also be noted that Commissioner Kuranoff left the meeting at 10:00 p.m. It was passed by consensus to approve the minutes of February 25, 1981 as amended. FROM CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF MARCH 16 Commissioner Stewart reported that the Council: 1) continued Tentative Map for the Lands of Riggen to re -design the driveway; 2) Wall and Fence Ordinance was returned to the Commission, the Council felt it was too complicated, with no enforcement and that possibly just a policy statement was needed. REPORT ON VARIANCE APPEAL, LANDS OF RAMIREZ, FILE #VAR 10-80: Staff informed Planning Commission that a report was to be prepared for the Council indicating reasons for denial on the Lands of Ramirez Variance request. Along with the minutes of January 14, 1981 and February 11, 1981 the following statements will be included: Commissioner Lachenbruch indicated he was at the January 14, meeting and voted for denial without prejudice, stating that the applicant could reduce the size of the variance request by manipulating the pool location. Commissioner Lachenbruch further indicated that the applicant has done just that, and feeling the conditions for granting a variance were upheld he gave the following reasoning: Condition #1 practical difficulties were not only due to the location on property at the boundary of the Town I but also because of the limited location for the solar panels Planning Commission Minutes of March 25, 1981 PAGE TWO due to topography, trees and existing improvements. Condition #2) in particular placement of pool and efficiency of solar energy. Commissioner Lachenbruch ex- pressed his concern of the surveillance of the swimming pool if placed to the side of the residence; also noting this is the location requested for placement of solar panels. Commissioner Lachenbruch recommended that this variance be granted. Commissioner Kuranoff stated he voted against this request because the creek and easements are not to be used as grounds for variances in this particular tract in accordance with the Tentative Map Conditions, He also noted he was sympathetic to the applicant, but at the time the residence was constructed the builder did not take into consideration future improvements of the property. Commissioner Kuranoff felt this was unacceptable and should be denied. He further indicated this lot and others were poorly planned by the builders at the time the residence was constructed, and if the Planning Commission and Council keep allowing variances the builders will keep pushing for them. Commissioner Stewart was at the January 14, 1981 meeting and indicated it was unanimous to deny without prejudice, due to non-conformance with Conditions 1,2 and 3 of variance criteria, he indicated lie felt this still applied and recommended denial of this -variance. Commissioner vanTamelen noted that she spoke with Commissioner Carico who attended the February 11, 1981 meeting on this matter, Commissioner Carico felt it should be approved due to: 1) the lot abuts a less restrictive com- munity; 2) concerned with safety element of watching children if the pool was located to the side of the residence; 3) solar energy location is best to the side of the house and 4) all neighbors were in favor of this request, PURT.TC RFARTNC1,- 1. Lands of Sunset, Ltd., (Rick Bell Builders), File #SA 1-81, 11839 Hilltop Drive, Request for Recommendation of Approval for Site Approval. Mr. Carlson referred to his staff report dated March 18, 1981, indicating the Planning Commission should recommend approval to the Council for this request. Commissioners questioned the location of the driveway. The public hearing was then opened. Mr. Rick Bell, 1481 Fairway Drive, indicated the following reasons the driveway is located from the front: 1) Hilltop is already intense with drivewAys eptering; 2) steep bank; 3) shortens the distance to the residence; 4) no room for turnaround without intruding on the property; 5) parking is limited. Staff discussed with the applicant Condition ].A., instead of a fifty foot radius, a hammserhead could be used. Working details still need to be worked out. It was the consensus of the Commission that the applicant return with a working drawing for the turnaround, and that the driveway enter from the top of Hilltop Drive. %W The public hearing was then closed. MOT10N SECONDED AND PASSED BY CONSENSUS: It was moved by Commissioner Lachenbruch and seconded by Commissioner Rydell that this item be deferred until a working drawing showing: 1) serviceable turnaround for public use with as little paving as possbile; 2) with applicant's interest considered a working drawing be established PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES OF MARCH 25, 1981 PAGE THREE for access to the residence from upper Hilltop Drive, (with no access to or from lower Hilltop Drive that would be aesthetically harmful to the area.) The applicant will return with working drawings for the April 8, 1981 meeting, 2. Lands of Sunset, Ltd., File #SA 2-81, Corbetta Lane, Rick Bell Builders, Request for Tecommendation of approval for Site Approval. Mr. Carlson referred to his staff report,dated March 18, 1981 indicating the major concern with this property is the locations of the Altamont Fault. The applicant's Soils Engineer did not locate the fault on the property and the Town's Geologist concurs with this by statiDg,"the fault is approximately eighty feet (80t) from the street frontage." With the forty foot (40') setback, there is sufficient distance not to warrant any special conditions due to the fault. Staff recommends approval of the Site Approval with Conditions, attached to March 18, 1981 staff report. The Public Hearing was then opened. Mr. Bell, 1481 Fairway Drive, indicated the present access is what will be used for the new residence. The Public Hearing was then closed, and Commissioners began review of the Conditions. It was passed by consensus to add Condition S.A. to read as follows: This parcel shall enter into a Private Road Mainten—ance Agreement at such time as one becomes available on Corbetta Lane 42W MOTION SECONDED AND PASSED UNANIMOUSLY: It was moved by Commissioner Lachenb:�ch and seconded by Commissioner Dochnahl to approve the Lands of Sunset, Ltd., File #SA 2-81 %W PLP V'SPTESS: 1. Wall and Fence Ordinance Commissioner Lachenbruch informed Commission that he had an informal discussion with Councilman Perkins, Perkins indicated the main concern was how this ordinance would be enforced. Staff informed Commission that at this time, there are no fence permits, other than six foot (61) height limit, there is no other control over fencing. MOTION SECONDED AND PASSED UNANIMOUSL,: It was moved by Commissioner Lachenbruch and seconded by Commissioner Dochnahl that the section in the Municipal Code which covers Building Permits, be amended to include: That Permits be required for fences and walls constructed within setback zone, adjacent to the roadway. MT. Carlson indicated he would talk with the Building Official and City Attorney on the administrative control of fencing ordinance, he will also check with the City Attorney to investigate which existing sections of the Municipal Code the proposed fence ordinance would apply. NEW BUSINESS: 1. Review of the Lands of Los Altos Hills Mr. Carlson gave a slide and exhibit presentation to the Planning Commission of the proposed twenty (20) lot subdivision, indicating that this presentation is only to PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES OF 14ARCH 2S, 1981 PAGE FOUR bring the Commission up to date on the progress of the project. The exhibits Mr. Carlson prepared showed the 20 lots with respect to protection of the ridge lines, wooded areas, open and conservation easements, location of residences, %W pathways and access. MT. Carlson noted the Commission should begin thinking about 1) what type of uses will be allowed within the conservation and open space easements, 2) location of residences, 3) institute design criteria, architectural design, or a review committee, Mr. Reneau, 13149 Byrd Lane, stated the questions bothering many people are summarized in the letter by the Committee for Green Foothills, dated March 25, 1981, to the Commission and Council. Mr. Carlson informed Commission he had prepared a letter in response to the letter received March 25, from the Committee (it was distributed to Commission and public). Mr. Robert Weir, 27743 Via Ventanna, indicated that he felt the Town should not make a profit and should just sell off number of lots to break even. The additional land should be devoted to public use for access and recreational purposes. Mr. Peter Wallace, 27975 Via VeRtanno, commended My. Carlson on his good plan, but felt additional sketches of alternate plans should be presented before going further. Mr. Wallace indicated the Town should not make a profit to acquire Open Space elsewhere, this parcel is perfect for large Open Space Area, feeling the open space should be one contiguous parcel held in public domain. He further noted there should be fewer lots and smaller acreage to prevent further subdivision. Mr. Wallace was also concerned with the access to the development, stating there are other routes available with less of an impact. Mrs. Betsy Fiksdal,,11271 Magdalena, noted that this land was in the past a site for environmental education and that development of the land would halt the studies, she further indicated before going any further, more sketch ideas should be considered. Mrs. Fran Stevenson, informed Commission this property had been discussed for Use by the environmental education program but had never been used. Commissioner Kuranoff indicated he had not seen any activity in a couple years. Mr. Reneau, noted that this I)Toject should be made a showcase of good planning and designing with intergration of houses into a rustic environment. With the proposed fencing ordinance being used as a model in this subdivision for coordination throughout the town. Mr. Reneau urged the need of workshop meetings to discuss CC�Rls and other items that need to be addressed. Mrs. Fran Stevenson, 26989 Beaver Lane, stated she was scared of the lar�e size of the lots, which would eventually mean expensive large houses in the subdivision. She also noted that the type of recreation in the open space would be more for hiking, riding, jogging through the scenic areas. Mrs. Ann Word, 27947 Via Ventanna, was concerned with the Town making money and acquiring other parcels of open space elsewhe To in the town. She would like further information on the estimate cost of development ana anticipated sales price of the lots. Commissioner Kuranoff complimented Mr. Carlson on his thorough job on presenting the proposed subdivision, indicating his concerns of the intensity of development on such large lots. He further expressed the need for extreme control with C.C.&R.'s. �4w Commissioner Stewart suggests 6 the Iowa hire Mr. Spangle for services and have further neighborhood input before going further. Mr. Carlson informed Commission that the Council had given direction and indicating that he was the project manager. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES OF MARCH 25, 1981 PAGE FIVE Mr. Carlson indicated he had already spoken with MT. Spangle on the uses of the land. %W My. Peter Wallace asked Commission to delete portion of acquisition statement which indicated that: the tw-enty-five (25) acres of con- servation easements and open space easements distributed amongst the twenty (20) lots of the subdivision. commission informed the audience and Mr. Wallace that this matter had already been considered and approved unanimously at their January 28, 1981 meeting. It was a consensus to bring this item back to the Planning Commission at their next meeting of April 8, to discuss further the uses of open space and layout design of the lots, At the April 22, meeting the Cxiimission will discuss intensity of development and architectural control of the subdivision. 2. Commissioner Dochnahl noted that on May 30, 1981, there will be a parade in honor of the Town's 25th Anniversary, he had been elected Chairman and if anyone has any ideas or input please get in touch as soon as possible. There being no further new or old business, the meeting was adjourned %W at 12:15 a.m. Respectfully Submitted, Leslie Penfold Engineering/Planning Secretary 114V