Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout06/25/1986PLANNING COMMISSION TUC OF LOS ALTOS HILLS 26379 Fremont Road IAS Altos Hills, California Wednesday, June 25, 1986 Reel 122, Side II, Tract I, 074 -End Chairman Carico called the meeting to order at 7;47 p.m. in the Town Hall Council Chambers A. RDLL CALL AND PLEDGE OF ALLFSIANCE: Present: Commissioners Gottlieb, Kaufman, Lachenbruch, Struthers and Chairman Carico Absent: Cannissioners Siegel and yanez City Council Representative: Council� Dronkert Staff: Michael Enright, City Dngineer; Nancy Lytle, Town Planner, Leslie bhillins, Secretary Councilwomen Dronkert presented Ca ssioner Gottlieb with Certificate on behalf of the Mayor and City Council Members and Planning Commission for her two years on the Planning Commission and years of service on the Town's Pathway Committee. Chairman Carico presented Commissioner Gottlieb with Town Plaque and card for her years of service as Planning Commissioner. B. CUiSENT CALENDAR: B.I. removed: (Struthers & Lytle) Struthers corrected the minutes to add reason for voting against retaining wall for Lands of Murphy/owen, page six: Retaining wall unsafe and would reflect a lot of noise, in the opinion in Commissioner Struthers. Lytle corrected the minutes on page three, fourth paragraph to replace "disapproval" with "continuance". MOMON SBCCtMED ASID CARRIED: Nbved by Gottlieb, seconded by Struthers and passed unanimously to approve the Consent Calendar, specifically: 1. Minutes of June 11., 1986 as amended. 2. Setting Public Hearings for July 9., 1986: a. Lands of Cabak, 13810 La Paloma Road, File #CUP 5-86, Conditional Use Permit - Cabana 3. Possible Joint Study Session between City Council and Planning Commission regarding Zoning Amendments Planning Commission Minutes - June 25, 1986 Page Two C. REPORT FROM CITY COUNCIL =ING OF JUNE 18, 1986: Commissioner Kaufman reported the City Council approved Lot Line Adjustment taw and Conditional Use Permit for Lands of Owen, old Trace Lane, noting questions were raised over dormitory above garage, informing comiissioers staff has interpreted only one secondary dwelling is proposed and the matter is a zoning and site development issue; approved Special Land Use Permits for Littauer; with some discussion over proposed ordinance amendments and limits set for development area and building coverage; approved E1 Monte Guard Rail Median; approved Resolution adopting new Landscaping Bond Requirements; approved Keenan wall, noting Council felt the fence ordinance did not apply in this application - the open wall design with arch was approved; Roads and Drainage Committee has a vacancy in the Matadero Creek Basin; Dedication of the Heritage House is September 6th from 12:00 - 3:00 P.M.; With regard to the Landscape Plan approved for the Heritage House the City Council was concerned that the Committee requirements were not brought to the attention of the City Coucnil as there was much discussion over the newly constructed pathway; van Tamelen brought up at the meeting the need for realignment on Arastradero Road near Saddle Mountain, discussion arised over who is responsible for maintenance, i.e., improvements, Arastradero/Burke - tree maintenance, El Monte; Council held discussion over Foothill College and Horsemen's Association over pathway; Birch Hill and Concepcion drainage problem; weed abatement process, and approved Winbigler Agreement for S{Urve Project. Commissioner Lachenbruch questioned the Special Land Use Permit for Littauer and discussion over NIDA and Building Coverage. Ms. Lytle informed Commission the allowed 4,000 sq.ft. of MDA minimum considered under the Urgency Ordinance is of concern with regard to applications such as Littauer and same considers - tion should be given when reviewing the proposed zoning amendments, noting the floor area calculations were not of concern in this application. D. PUBLIC HFARINGS: 1. LANDS OF CDJ=, 28155 Christophers Lane, Appeal of Administrative Decision for proposed addition (applicant has requested this be withdrawn from Agenda). 2. ZCNING ORDINANCE AMWIENT, SECTION 10-1.504, Setback for Residential Structure Lines (Affecting lots that alert more than one street or vehicular access Easement) Ms. Lytle referred to her staff report dated June 16, 1986 informing Commission at the December 11, 1986 meeting, Commission directed the City Attorney to draft an ordinance revision to reflect the intent of the Commission in determining setbacks for lots which abut on more than one roadway, noting it was decided that the decision would be most efficiently and logically made by the Site Development Authority rather than the full Planning Commission. Ms. Lytle noted the City Attorney has drafted the Ordinance to reflect the Commission's recamiendation, noting the language contained in the commission's recomendation which states that the "Authority shall normally designate the forty foot setback from the street, easement or plan line from which the property has access" was deleted by the City Attorney for reasons that this statement is a policy statement and should not be incorporated into the Ordinance, further noting the statement was ambiguous for parcels which have access to more than one roadway. Ms. Lytle suggested that this policy be incorporated into a handout which could be distributed to applicants as an alternative. The Public Hearing was then opened, and closed with no one speaking for or against this item. Planning Commission Minutes - June 25, 1986 Page Three D. PUBLIC HEARINGS: 2. Zoning ordinance Amendment (continued) Ceaaissioner Lachenbruch suggested amending working on Page two, Section 2., as follows: aesthetic impact ... Add: "of the development on the neighboring properties and public at large". Ms. Lytle informed Camission the City Engineer has suggested that a new Section 3., should be added: "Where a setback line has been established and recorded by previous subdivision". Lachenbruch suggested the wording be as follows: "Unless more restrictive setbacks have been established by recorded subdivision. Kaufman did not feel this appropriate as it requires the applicant to follow the more restrictive. Carico and Struthers informed Commissioners that this is a very important issue and the Site Development Committee does need some direction, referring to an application which was before Site Development that morning for setback determination. Councilwoman Dronkert noted it seems the only reason that this has come up, is with applications that do not have previous setback determination with subdivision, noting this has caused some confusion when application is up for review, suggesting this proposed amendment should be forwarded to the City Attorney for his consideration. MOPI()N SECONDED AND CARRIED: Moved Dy Lachenbruch, seconded by Kaufman and passed unanimously to add to the end of Section 2.,the following: aesthetic impact..."on the neighboring properties and the public at large". MorIoN SECCNDED AND CARRIED: Moved by Lachenbruch, seconded by Struthers and passed by the following roll call vote to Add Section 3., as follows: Where a more restrictive setback line has been established and recorded by previous action. ROLL CAIS,: AYES: Camissioners Gottlieb, Lachenbruch, Struthers and Chairman Carico NOES: Commissioner Kaufman ABSTAIN: None Planning Commission determined this Zoning Ordinance Amendment be sent back to the City Attorney for his consideration on the addition of Section #3, prior to re cowman dation of adoption of the ordinance to the City Council. Agenda Items F,1. and G.1. to be considered prior to E. STUDY SESSION, F. NEW BUSINESS: 1. Site Development Ordinance, Right -of -Way Dedication Policy Mr. Enright referred to his staff report dated June 20, 1986, noting because dedication is not mandatory for every application, these needs to be a policy set to help guide members of the Site Development Authority when they review an application and to let potential applicants know what will be required by the Authority. Mr. Enright gave Camnission suggested policy statements to be used by Site Development Authority and hand-out information for applicants. Commissioner Lachenbruch raised concern over lots established between 1973 and 1980, when the new right-of-way ordinance was adopted, noting perhaps there is a need for amendment to the newly adopted Site Development Ordinance. Mr. Enright noted lots within that time period should be heard by the City Attorney, noting at this time staff needs direction at the Site Development meetings when road right-of-way is appropriate. Planning Commission Minutes - June 25, 1986 Page Four F. N69 BUSINESS: 1. Site DeveloFment Ordinance, Right -of -Way (continued): CaRmission and staff discussed suggested policy proposed and raised some concerns over setbacks and right-of-way determinations. Kaufman raised concerns over what authority the Town has that if a right-of-way is not dedicated, how can we make applicants adhere to a 70' setback from the centerline of the roadway? Mr. Enright noted this policy is not intended to cover every situation in Town, it is clearly intended to use as a guideline, whether to require right-of-way dedication or not. MOTION SECCNDED AND CARR=: raved by Lachenbruch, seconded by Carico and passed unanimously to: Remove Title Sections I. and II.; Add "Guidelines for" in front of Addition to Existing Residences; Amend II.1. to be #6, to read as follows: Proposed development shall not encroach into the setback areas that would exist if standard road right-of-way dedication was required. Also to be included for use with new residences. Renumber II.2. to #7, and add at the beginning: "For an addition to existing residence dedication of road right-of-way shall not apply to an application involving an increase of floor area by less than 258 or 750 sq.ft. whichever amount is greater. G. OLD BUSINESS: 1. Preliminary Reviews of Development Applications by the Planning Commission Ms. Lytle referred to her staff report dated June 19, 1986, informing Crnmnission this item has been scheduled for discussion to adopt a formal policy to guide future Preliminary Reviews, noting staff recrnmends that Cmmission adopt a Preliminary Review to be scheduled for a development proposal when staff determines that the design of the project would benefit through informal input from the Planning Camdssion, or when requested by the applicant, noting the purpose of the review is for the applicant to "poll the mind of the commission in an informal way, noting any opinions expressed should always be prefaced with the statement that the Caanission reserves the right to change their mind should additional information be brought forward prior to or during the public hearing on the actual application. Any convents made are for the purpose of guiding the applicant, and a formal motion to approve or deny the concept is not appropriate. Commissioners and Staff discussed the paragraph Ms. Lytle referred to regarding "polling the mind of the Cammission" expressing some concern over this phrase, noting the purpose of Preliminary Review is for the applicant and Commission to informally interact on proposed application and to relate Town Policies; and any comments made are to guide the applicant. Gottlieb suggested that the applicant sign a docu ent which states the Preliminary Review is only for interpretation. MOTION SECOWED AND CAP=: Moved by Lachenhruch, seconded by Kaufman and passed by the following roll call vote to amend the last paragraph in Ms. Lytle's staff report as follows: The purpose of the review is for the applicant and Commission to interact info=lly on potential application problems and for suggestions for improvements to the application based upon Tum Policy. [ Any comments made are for the purpose of guiding the applicant, and a formal 4y motion to approve or deny the concept is not appropriate. ROTS, CALL: AYES: Cam¢missioners Kaufman, Lachenbrvch, Struthers NOES: Commissioner Gottlieb and Chairman Carico ABSTAIN: None Planning Camaission Minutes - June 25, 1986 Page Five G. OID BUSINESS; 1. Preliminary Review: (continued) �r MCTIcN SECOMED AND CARRIED: moved by Iachenbruch, seconded by Carico and passed unanimusly that any opinions expressed by Camiission should always be prefaced with the statewent that the commissioners might change their mind after additional study. 2. Ms. Mullins questioned Commission over how many iters should be scheduled for Site Developrent Committee Meetings? Canmission noted if there are two residences up for review the Agenda should be limited to four items, further noting if staff feels an iter is controversial, that item should be placed at the end of the Agenda. Gottlieb suggested that if you are running over the time period scheduled, perhaps it should be continued to an on-site visit. 3. Commission discussed Planning Connission Representative at City Council meetings to report on actions taken by the Site Development Committee to keep them informed of actions. Chairman Carico noted she would take this suggestion to the City Council for their input. 3. Commissioner Kaufman questioned when Ccmission would review the proposal for relocation of Town Hall entrance. Chaim Cation noted the Commission should be informed of any other proposals besides the one supplied at the last tweeting. Mr. Enright noted the sketch presented at the last meeting was only for conceptual review, noting he is not aware of any other proposals, suggesting this iter be placed on a future agenda for further discussion. Commissioner Struthers noted we should respond to Council and that any chanes be thought of as an overall Master Plan. Councilwoman Dronkert informed Commission the Council is not in an urgent rush for response on this issue, noting we are really asking for Commission to look at the entrance location for planning considerations, i.e., negative/ positive inpacts, etc., we are still thinking of an overall landscape plan for the entire property. Counciiwoam Drcnkert noted the Envirommntal Design Committee is to look at it for aesthetic reasons, the Safety Committee for Safety Reasons, noting it will be brought to Commissions attention again. E. STUDY SESSION; 1. Proposed Zoning Ordinance Anmat ents Ms. Scott referred to her Report dated June 21, 1986, informing Camiission she has highlighted sane of the problem areas that have been improved: 1. Panhandles; 2, Height definition; 3. Minimum parcel size; and 4. Driveways. Ms. Scott noted issues which need to be discussed tonight are: 1. Floor Area Definition; 2, Grand- father Clause exceptions; 3. Miniimn Floor Area allowed; and Formula Backup information. CQRmission and staff reviewed Ms. Scott's report and Graphs and Tables. F. ADJQIrON=: There being no further new or old business, the meeting was adjourned at 12:30 A.M. Respectfully su1n itted, Leslie Mullins Engineering/Planning