Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout03/23/19944w Minutes of a Regular Meeting Town of Los Altos Hills PLANNING COMMISSION cc: March 23,1994, 7:00 p.m.. robers, 26379 Fremont Road ROU CALL AND PI EDGE OF ALLEGIANCE Approved 4/13/94 The Planning Commission meeting was called to order at 7:10 p.m. in the Council Chambers at Town Hall. Present: Chairman Comiso, Commissioners Ettinger, Schreiner, Smunu, Stutz & Takamoto Absent: Commissioner Cheng Staff: Jeff Peterson, City Engineer; Suzanne Davis, Assistant Planner; Lani Lonberger, Planning Secretary 4W 2. PRESENTATIONS EROM THE FLQQ Persons wishing to a ddress the Commission (on any subject not on the agenda are invited to do so now. Please note, however, that the Commission is not able to undertake extended discussion or take action tonight on non-agenclized items. Stich items will be referred to Staff or placed on the agenda for a future meeting. None 3. CONSENT CALENDAR Items appearing (in the Consent Calendar are considered routine and will be adopted in one motion, except for any item removed for separate consideration elsewhere on the agenda. The Chairman will ask the Commission and the audience for requests to remove these items. None. 4WW Planning Commission Minutes Approved 4/13/94 March 23, 1994 Page 2 4W 4. REPORT FROM JUE CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF MARCH 16,1994 4.1 Commissioner Cheng was the representative. In her absence Ms. Davis noted that the Lands of Twombly was pulled from the consent calendar and will be heard at the April 6th meeting. 4.2 Planning Commission representative for April 6th will be Commissioner Ellinger. 5. PI JBLIC HEMINGS 5.1 LANDS OF DRAEGER, 27811 Lupine Road; A request for a Site Development Permit for a New Residence. Staff requested a continuance since additional information was not submitted in time for review and the Engineering Department concerns have not been adequately addressed. 5.2 LANDS OF JUE, 12896 La Barranca Road; A request for a Site Development Permit for a Major Addition and Remodel. Staff had nothing further to add to the staff report. kW Commissioner Schreiner discussed condition 11 and the fact that there was a pathway in that location. The material of the pathway looks to be broken concrete. She asked for the reason why the path would have to be taken up and re -done. Mr. Peterson noted that concrete paths are not standard and would need to be brought up to current standards. Commissioner Stutz thought the material was asphalt not concrete. She did not feel they should take out a small section to be replaced with the IIB path when they see no foreseeable future of continuing a IIB path. She did feel it was a problem for the horses. The area that has been washed out by water would need to be filled in so the horses can use the area between the path and the street. OPENED PUBLIC HEARING Mrs. Joe, 12896 La Barranca Road, applicant, was present to answer any questions. She had read the conditions of approval and only questioned the request for the driveway being roughened (condition 11). The condition was explained to Mrs. Joe to her satisfaction. CLOSED PUBLIC HEARING Commissioner Schreiner felt the application was straightforward and she was in favor of the project. The Commissioners were all in favor of leaving the pathway as is. �W Planning Commission Minutes Approved 4/13/94 March 23,1994 Page 3 4W MOTION SECONDED AND PASSED: Motion by Commissioner Ellinger, seconded by Commissioner Sinurm and passed by consensus to approve the new wording for condition 11 as follows: 11. The existing paved path on La Barranca Road shall be kept free and clear during construction. Any failed portions of the path shall be repaired prior to final inspection, to the satisfaction of the Engineering Department, MOTION SECONDED AND PASSED: Motion by Commissioner Takamoto and seconded by Commissioner Schreiner to approve the Site Development Permit for a major addition and remodel as conditioned by Staff with the change to condition 11: AYES: Chairman Comiso, Commissioners Stutz, Takarnoto, Ettinger, Schreiner & Smunu NOES: None ABSENT: Commissioner Cheng Chairman Comiso explained the 10 day appeal period to the applicant and public. 5.3 LANDS OF INOUYE, 14250 Miranda Road; A request for a Site Development Permit for a New Residence. A neighbor of the Inouye property inquired about the project on March 18th. It was discovered that they did not receive notice of the public hearing. After checking the mailing list it was discovered that while the 500 foot radius map was correct, 14 of the property owners within 500 feet did not receive public notices. The applicant has been made aware of this situation and a new mailing list will be submitted next week. The Planning Department will re -notice this application for the April 13 Planning Commission meeting. 5.4 LANDS OF VUCINICH, 13826 Page Mill Road (located on Moon Lane); Negative Declaration and proposed subdivision of a 4.97 acre parcel into 3 lots (Assessors Parcel No. 182-08-021). Chairman Comiso disclosed that she went to the project site to meet Mr. Ewald who had written a letter regarding the drainage around Moon Lane. She spent three hours discussing the project on site. Mr. Ewald provided her with papers regarding the history of Moon Lane Copies were provided to the Commissioners. Commissioner Schreiner disclosed that she had been told that she has a potential possible conflict with this application because she lives on Saddle Mountain Drive. She lives more than 500 feet away, although some of the issues regarding drainage may impact the residence on Saddle Mountain Drive. She will step down as a Commissioner and direct her questions to the Commission as a resident. Planning Commission Minutes Approved 4/13/94 March 23,1994 Page 4 (4W Chairman Cormso discussed the present staff and the past problems with Moon Lane over many years. She noted that when the audience questions staff they should remember that staff has inherited these problems. Mr. Peterson noted that on page six of the staff report he recommended a condition that the roadway be widened up to four feet on the subdivision side of the street to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. However, this was not listed as a Conditions of Approval. He has discussed this with the applicant and their representative. He requested that this be added as follows: The applicant shall widen Moon Lane up to four feet in width on the north side of the street adjacent to the subdivision to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. It shall be required by the applicant and demonstrated by the applicant's geotechnical engineer that the widening will occur on stable soil. The applicant shall also crack -seal the pavement and fix any potholes on Moon Lane adjacent to the subdivision. Mr. Peterson explained the reasoning behind the request as a neighbor on Moon Lane had provided him with photographs of a slide that occurred on a portion of Moon Lane adjacent to the applicant's property. This condition addresses the fact that it would need to be stable otherwise a widening should not take place. Chairman Comiso requested that Mr. Ewald present the photos he had brought to the meeting for the Commission to review as the application was discussed. Commissioner Stutz felt one of the first things they needed to do was to establish the ownership of Moon Lane. She did not remember anyone bringing in an application with any evidence of right-of-way (paperwork) to use Moon Lane. The Commission has been told that Mr. Moon still owned the road and they had an easement over the road. Unless Mr. Moon is still alive, she felt no one owned the road and perhaps it should revert to the Town. Mr. Peterson noted that Moon Lane was a private street. The only question is who owns it. The approach of the staff is that the applicant will need to find out the ownership along its length for easements. To do this before the hearing was not appropriate as the applicant may have gone to great expense and perhaps even legal expense when there is always the potential of being denied. This issue has been conditioned. Commissioner Stutz noted that over the past 10 years there have been approximately six applications in this area. Each time nothing has been requested of the applicants. She did not feet it was fair to the present applicant to prove ownership of the road. She felt that everyone who feels they have a right-of-way on this road should be equally, financially capable of investigating ownership. She further discussed title search process. Mr. Peterson noted the problem is that they only have one applicant in front of Planning Commission Minutes Approved 4/13/94 March 23,1994 Page 5 6ar them and can only condition that one applicant. Through this process they cannot condition other people on the street. Commissioner Stutz commented that a decision needs to be made. Nothing will ever be done on the road if they continue to do it piecemeal. It is not the Town's responsibility if the road is private. If the Town is going to work on the road then it should be a public street. Commissioner Ellinger noted that he had been out to the site and the map in front of him only covers the specific application area yet the topic is largely drainage which covers a larger area than depicted on the map. He asked for a bigger view of the area to make any kind of decision. He asked staff if they have a water shed map or a drainage map that covers the flows that are feeding into this area. He also asked if there was a water and/or drainage plan for this area. Mr. Peterson noted that the Town has drainage basin maps that divide the particular drainage basins into their respective area. The Commission asked that the maps be made available to them. OPENED PUBLIC HEARING Mr. Ewald, 13830 Page Mill Road, neighbor west of the proposed subdivision. He noted that he did not have the map Commissioner Ellinger requested. However he did have others which he would provide to staff for the Commissions' review. He was not opposed in principle to the subdivision as he felt Mr. Vucinich has a right to develop his property. However, he was concerned with the drainage problems in the Moon Lane basin. He felt the Town has been remiss in dealing with this issue. Past projects have not had to address the drainage problems, beginning with the Saddle Mountain subdivision and continuing with applications for individual lot development on Saddle Mountain, Moon Lane and Fawn Creek. It is time that the Town took responsibility with a long-term plan for the drainage that addresses the problems. In discussing the staff report and Negative Declaration, he asked what are the Town standards for drainage. Of concern were two street drains on Saddle Court which are uphill. He feared the water is going down into the Moon Lane basin which he felt was creating siltation problems on the Chown property. Mr. Ewald further discussed his letter sent to the Planning Commission and the suggestion regarding forming a storm drainage district and possible shared costs. He commented on the request to widen Moon Lane four feet and the pathway. A parallel path was not necessary. He also commented on moving earth to create driveways for new lots. If cut from the upper slope is to be moved to the lower part of the lots to lessen the slope, the upper part of the property may have problems. There is not much soil on top of the bedrock. It makes more sense to import soil to build up the area instead of moving it elsewhere on the site. Mr. Ewald was asked by Commissioner Stutz if the drainage problems were worse after the Moon Lane project. He did not know although the problems seem to get progressively worse with time . He has not noticed any increase related to that particular project. Commissioner Stutz noted that there can be problems all over Town �W Planning Commission Minutes Approved 4/13/94 March 23, 1994 Page 6 46V when pipes are not cleared out. She also noted that there was a pathway all the way up to Saddle Mountain on the other side of the fence. Tim Chown, 13822 Page Mill Road, commented that he has no problem with the subdivision except for the drainage. His family has lived in the area 15 years before the Saddle Mountain subdivision and 15 years following it. The drainage problems have not always been there. The drainage problems attributed to the Saddle Mountain subdivision were created because they were not done properly. The Town had accepted a solution to the drainage problem 15 years ago which has not worked. Unfortunately, the Town now needs to take responsibility for what they accepted. He noted the original mistake was not having Bass Homes pay for fixing the drainage problems. Dru Anderson, 27820 Saddle Court, neighbor directly above the Chown property. She commented that she was against the environmental, aesthetics affect of more subdivisions and development on Moon Lane. She was concerned with the long range impact; visually and environmentally. She discussed the Town's philosophy regarding the rural area. They should look at Moon Lane in its entirety with a well thought out plan rather than a hodge-podge development. Commissioner Sinunu asked Mrs. Anderson if she was in favor of an assessment district. She commented that she would like more time to consider it before saying yes or no. Commissioner Ellinger noted that 4W she was the first speaker who had addressed the issue of the rural character and the impact on the setting. He asked Mrs. Anderson for her opinion of the proposal. Mrs. Anderson was surprised that there were two more houses being proposed in this area. The houses would need to be placed high on the lots as it appears to be border -line area for development. Logically, some of this lot should be in a conservation easement as properties on Saddle Mountain have done. The property is very steep and is bisected by water. Chairman Comiso clarified that the application was for a subdivision of this property. Although the map shows two houses and two building circles, the applicant is not asking for two houses to be built in those locations. Because it is required they put one building circle on one piece of property it does not mean they have to build within those circles. The property has to show it is capable of supporting a building pad. Dr. Bavor, 13816 Page Mill Road, discussed aesthetics (Moon Lane is a country lane); the pathway is over the road; no need for another path; and the water crossing his property forming a marsh in his pasture. The drainage on Moon Lane is due to all the water crossing the road. He repairs the road each year. In answer to a question from Commissioner Stutz, Dr. Bavor noted yes, his lot of 3 1/2 acres is subdiviclable. Chairman Comiso asked Dr. Bavor his opinion regarding a storm drainage district. He felt he was in a storm district on Moon Lane. He discussed the thousands of dollars spent in different methods he used to take the water away. He further discussed a �aw conservation easement 4bv Planning Commission Minutes Approved 4/13/94 March 23,1994 Page 7 Dot Schreiner, 14301 Saddle Mountain Drive, felt they should look at what the total build -out is on Moon Lane, as there are several lots which can potentially be subdivided. It is important to realize that these homes have been coming in one by one, and nothing has been done to make this road safer. it is still a small, one lane country road with maybe a potential of 20 homes accessing off of it. She discussed the possible storm drain district. As a resident she noted that when they purchased their property on Saddle Mountain they paid a purchase price that included all of the improvements relating to drainage improvements and others. To ask a subdivision that has already paid their fair share of drainage improvements to pay once again sets up a dangerous precedent in this town. She did not know if legally you can ask someone to become part of something that does not benefit them in any way. She was also concerned with the sewer lines, water lines and the easement lines that are going down Moon Lane. She would like to see them made large enough to service all of the potential homes, not just this small subdivision. Commissioner Sinunu noted that some of the improvements that Saddle Mountain subdivision has paid for are actually adding to the problems in the drainage basin because there is water being collected at the top and being funneled directly down into the swale. Mrs. Schreiner felt the water coming down from the top of Saddle Mountain funnels down and drains down the driveway and then goes along the street gutter. She has never seen water overflowing catch basins. Commissioner Ellinger clarified his kv understanding, noting that the policy at the time of the Saddle Mountain subdivision was to pipe the water off the private property into a public drainage facilities. Then once the water is in the public facilities, he asked where the water goes from there. Mrs. Schreiner was not sure, however she did not think it went into the Moon Lane basin. The water may end up in the creek or down on Arastradero. Commissioner Ellinger asked if there were any funds set aside from the subdivision for improvements. The response was no. He asked if the improvements were felt to be inadequate, what would happen in her subdivision and who would be responsible. Mrs. Schreiner commented that if there was a problem she would just fix it, Regarding the pathway, yes, people do use Moon Lane but what is needed is legal access and therefore they need a dedication. Further discussion ensued regarding drainage responsibility. Commissioner Stutz pointed out that the land within a conservation easement is still part of an individual owners properties, and therefore is their responsibility. Alan Huntzinger, engineer, who prepared the Vucinich plans, had completed a drainage analysis for Mr. Peterson of the land of Vucimch, Chown and the drainage basin coming in. Mr. Huntzinger noted that above the Vucinich property there are 32 acres that drain through this area, of which Vucimch has five acres. When you include other properties below, you have 40-50 acres in the drainage basin down to Matadero Creek. Some of the existing pipes in Moon Lane are not large enough. The pipe 16 proposed for the Vucinich site has been designed for major storms that come along Planning Commission Minutes Approved 4/13/94 March 23,1994 Page 8 every five to ten years. Mr. Huntzinger was not sure if the drainage situation could be solved this evening. Listening to the neighbors, it sounded as if most were in favor of an assessment district. An assessment district has been discussed with Mr. Vucinich and he is willing to contribute his fair share. He noted that the water comes off Saddle Mountain, drains down through Anderson's property, stops on her property and spills over onto Chown, makes a mess out of Chown's property, spills out of the Chown property onto Vucinich, Vucinich spills down onto Ewald. Water runs downhill. As long as you keep the water moving it appears to be fine. Basically, Mr. Vucinich is in agreement with the conditions of approval recommended by staff. Mr. Huntzinger had a question initially regarding the need for a trial on this particular property. He did not realize until he received the packet that there was a conservation easement which he did not feel was a problem. Perhaps a trail, if it had to go in, could be down at the bottom of the creek and follow the lower reaches of the conservation easement. There is a need to determine ownership of Moon Lane in order to put in public facilities. Moon Lane does have a 40 foot right-of-way which local people have equal rights to use. In reading the title report it states they have an easement for ingress/egre5s and public utilities. it does not say they own Moon Lane but they have the right to use it. He presumed it meant that they could subdivide into three lots and still have a right to use Moon Lane. Mr. Huntzinger was asked if he could determine from an engineering standpoint what the contribution of the water is on this development, what Commissioner Ettinger would call public development (streets) versus private development (impervious �w constructions such as roofs, buildings, tennis courts, etc.). Mr. Huntzinger commented that he could run an analysis and break it down. He also noted that he had worked with the City of San Jose and with various assessment districts. Any property owner can participate in an assessment district. It is a matter of determining if the rate of participation should be either each owner, area of the lot or area of development. For a valid district to work, you must have majority agreement (51%) of the owners. He felt that perhaps Bass Homes did not take the water far enough by dumping it onto Chown. Mr. Huntzinger was asked about the sewer and the impact to the Ewald property. He commented that the sewer can be accessed without going on the Ewald site, somewhere on Page Mill between Moon Lane and Pasco del Roble. Regarding Mr. Ewald's concern with the grading of the driveway, he felt it would not make any difference if they did hit rock as they will pave the driveway anyway. You wilt have a total runoff from any driveway whether it is on fill or cut. Mr. Huntzinger discussed septic system versus sewer noting septic could be used, however this would force a house higher upon the Nil because it is so wet on the lower portion of the site. Staff recommended a sewer system. They can get a sewer in there and at some point in time the sewer system would benefit other residence. He further discussed sitting problems noting the single item contributing to sitting in the whole valley which is not houses or native vegetation but disking of weeds for fire safety. Planning Commission Minutes Approved 4/13/94 March 23,1994 Page 9 (410 Mrs. Anderson suggested finding out where problems are originating. Some of the properties on Saddle Mountain and Saddle Court drain in more than one direction. Not all of the water goes into the Moon Lane basin. Mr. Ewald felt they only needed one district and not split into separate districts. He further commented on the Santa Clara County drainage regulations. Mr. Peterson noted that the Town has adopted the Santa Clara County drainage regulation standards. Sheet flow is encouraged as much as possible because when water is caused to sheet across grass and natural vegetation, it slows the water flow down which prevents it from eroding, concentrating and speeding up getting down stream. What causes an increase in the rate of runoff is the pipe. Currently they try to limit piping in Town because all that piping does is increase the rate of runoff to the down stream properties. Each particular site is different and has its own set of challenges. He noted that it was impossible not to increase the rate of runoff some on any development unless you build a detention basin on every single lot in town or have public detention basins on all drainage swales. Unfortunately, this would create mosquito ponds all over town. Detention basins are high maintenance. Mr. Peterson further discussed new regulations regarding storm water control. He noted when you put in detention basins, it slows down the water, the sediment drops out and now what you have is sediment that is laden with fertilizers, herbicides and so forth. This has to be cleaned out on a regular basis. Finding a place to dump this is next to impossible as it is hazardous material. He felt all the drainage on Moon Lane could be piped all the way to the creek. This would remove the problem from that area but would cause a problem down stream by increasing the rate of run off significantly. CLOSED PUBLIC HEARING Mr. Peterson discussed the five options listed in the staff report and dissipaters slowing water down but not decreasing the flow. He noted if water is allowed to flow through the Vucinich site through the grass swale it will be the most effective, short of adding a detention basin. Other methods will speed up flow creating problems down stream. The Town cleans their dissipaters, pipes, catch basins on a yearly basis. Further discussion ensued regarding drainage from the Young property onto the Vucinich site; the 12" culvert across Moon Lane needing to be upsized; and the main problems may be capacity and erosion. Also of concern is a 12" pipe that passes from the Vucinich side across Moon Lane to the Bavor side from the downstream end. Looking at the end of the pipe, the road is undermined approximately three feet; there is a hole under the road large enough to fit two to three men. Improvements discussed would be to modify the dissipater on the Anderson's property; to increase the size of the pipe that crosses under Moon Lane just below the Vucinichs with some rock on the downhill side to support the road; the culvert that crosses under the Bavor driveway would need to be upsized; perhaps a need fora open swale or ditch on either the Bavor side of their fence or could fit on the Moon Lane side down to the creek, into a pipe and into the creek. Planning Commission Minutes Approved 4/13/94 March 23,1994 Page 10 4W Chairman Comiso noted that there had originally been a creek on the Bavor side of the road. The location of the old creek was discussed. Mr. Peterson further discussed cost of a system if they also put in a system of pipes all the way down which he felt would be very expensive. He noted if you put in a culvert crossing under Moon Lane, fix the energy dissipater on the Andersons, did a graded swale that would be protected from erosion and then a pipe into the creek, you could possibly get by with a cost of S30,000. Another consideration is that Los Altos Hills is a rural community. The most common way of handling water in rural areas are ditches. Commissioner Ellinger discussed a report to George Scarborough, City Manager from Michael W. Enright, City Engineer regarding a report on Saddle Mountain -Moon Lane drainage basin dated 1986. He asked Mr. Peterson how effective would be the changes he had discussed. Mr. Peterson noted that hopefully it would effect all of the concerns that were expressed this evening. Commissioner Ellinger had heard Mr. Chown's discussion regarding the problems with the dissipater. He knew it sprayed water around and did not work properly. Mr. Peterson commented that this particular problem would probably not be addressed because water would still be running through this area. Commissioner Ellinger was concerned with the drainage from the Young property onto the Vucinich site, asking if the drainage improvements suggested would be adequate to handle this. Mr. Peterson stated as far as capacity, they would design and size all the pipes for full build out. When the pipes are sized to carry the water either crossing Moon Lane or carrying it in a ditch, they need to look at all possible subdivisions and all possible development area. Mr. Peterson again explained his proposal which is similar to what went in on El Monte (contractors bid was $12,000). The improvements would be as follows: there is a 12 inch culvert that crosses Moon Lane just below the Vucinich subdivision which would need to be upsized; from there the channel traverses the Bavor property. He was not aware of a flooding or capacity problem on their property along that stretch other than when it gets down close to the driveway then the channel gets shallow. Also, where it crosses their driveway, the pipe is too small and would need to be up-sized. A portion of the channel upstream of their driveway would need to be enlarged. From there, a channel or ditch would need to be graded from the driveway all the way to within 50 feet of the creek. The water district requires that water entering the creek that is concentrated, enter in a pipe with a rock dissipater. The problem is since the water has no other place to go at the very bottom of Moon Lane, the lowest point is Moon Lane so Moon Lane is the channel. Chairman Comiso does not want the people down stream of Matadero Creek to have this problem. In Mr. Peterson's opinion, both systems (pipe system with lateral pipes and catch basins and pick up points, etc. through this entire area) will pick up the water, put it underground. It will then send it to the creek which will reduce the problem. The system could be brought all the way up to the system on the Andersons so there is no energy dissipater to deal with on the Chown property. If it were a surface system, it would be a matter of In LM Planning Commission Minutes Approved 4/13/94 March 23,1994 Page 11 controlling it and confining the water in one area that is big enough so that it does not leave that channel and go onto the road way. Commissioner Stutz questioned how they assure that the Youngs take care of putting all of their water out soon enough on the property so that it has some possibility of drain- ing in and is not going to distribute water onto the Vucinich property. Mr. Peterson noted that it would distribute water onto the Vucinich property because they are downhill from the Youngs. The Youngs, like other developments, are required to try to dissipate their water out. Even if the Young property was not there, the Vucinich lots would have to design for the water above them. It was noted that the Young dissipater might be the biggest in town. Commissioner Stutz felt there should not be just one dissipater but several small ones. Mr. Peterson explained the design of the present dissipater and that the Town only inspects dissipaters at the time of a final. The staff does not inspect drainage systems as they are being constructed. The staff has not looked at this one yet but it will be scheduled. It was suggested conditioning the properties as they come in so all weed control would be done through mowing. Mr. Peterson had recommended this suggestion to Council previously without success. It was noted that the Planning Commission could make a recommendation to the City Council regarding mowing. Commissioner Sinunu asked who was going to pay for this. Mr. Peterson noted this was a difficult question and that was why he had five conditions (options) in the staff report. He commented that they cannot condition anyone other than the Vucinich's regarding drainage improvements as it needs to be connected to this application. They could require the Vucinichs to establish an assessment district, but cannot require it as part of the subdivision conditions. If a majority of property owners do not support an assessment district, it would fail. An assessment district, if approved, would assess, in whatever fashion, all the people in this basin. However, if the improvements that were done were the more simplistic improvements to do the assessment district where you would need a vote, legal council, and go through public hearings, the process may cost more than the improvements. Commissioner Ellinger noted that he would not be able to approve the Negative Declaration as every single bit of development has impacted this landscape and glen in some way. He discussed the five options listed in the staff report and an assessment district. He felt there was not enough data to make a decision this evening. Commissioner Simmu. Chairman Comiso discussed continuing the application or noted they could deny it. If they cannot approve the Negative Declaration, they could not approve the subdivision. She recommended forming a subcommittee which would meet as soon as possible with members from the Planning Commission, residents and possibly a Council member. Commissioner Ellinger would like to include the information and maps discussed at the �ar beginning of the meeting as part of the subcommittee meeting. 4W Planning Commission Minutes Approved 4/13/94 March 23,1994 Page 12 Commissioner Takamoto also agreed with previous comments by the Commissioners. They should be looking at the big picture in terms of the total area and resolve this first before discussing who would be responsible and for what costs. Alan Huntzinger agreed with the continuance and will participate in the subcommittee meeting. He noted that he heard no one voice opposition to the three lot subdivision. MOTION SECONDED AND PASSED: Motion by Chairman Comiso and seconded by Commissioner Ellinger to continue the application for a Tentative Parcel Map and Negative Declaration for redesign to gather more information relating to the drainage. This information will include the topography and water shed information. This application will be continued to the April 27,1994 Planning Commission meeting. This will allow time for a special subcommittee meeting which will be scheduled for April 12, 1994 at 5:30 replacing the scheduled meeting for Seismic Safety/Safety Element. The subcommittee meeting will include Chairman Comiso and/or Commissioner Ellinger, Commissioner Stutz with a request for at least one Council member. Residents in the drainage basin will be noticed prior to the meeting. Information discussed at the subcommittee meeting will include topo and water shed information with a recommendation to the Planning Commission that would have a high probability of being approved, financeable as part of whatever is proposed and engineered to deal with the full built out condition. Commissioner Stutz requested information on the ownership of Moon Lane for the April 27th meeting. AYES: Chairman Comiso, Commissioners Simmu, Stutz, Takamoto & Ellinger NOES: None ABSENT: Commissioner Cheng ABSTAIN: Commissioner Schreiner 6. NEW BUSINESS Commissioner Stutz suggested the Council address the subject of private roads in town and what they intend to do with them, possibly at the March 30th joint meeting. Mr. Peterson discussed the requirements for converting a private road into a public road. The two basic conditions are; the right-of-way width be to the Town standards and that the street be constructed to Town standards. He further read a portion of the 1989 Road Right-of-way Policy. 6.1 Discussion regarding how much of a house can be removed before it is no longer considered a remodel -continued. 4W Planning Commission Minutes Approved 4/13/94 March 23,1994 Page 13 Mr. Peterson discussed the remodel on Carillo Lane which ended up being totally torn down. This was not what was approved at the Planning Commission level. What was explained to staff by the builder was that as they were starting to tear off plaster board, etc. they found things that were not to standard and could not work with it as it was not structurally adequate. Mr. Peterson noted that Ms. Niles has spent a considerable amount of time talking with the developer, looking at the building plans and talking to the City Attorney. They are duplicating what was removed, however if the Commission knew what was going to be removed, perhaps there could have been different input at the original Planning Commission meeting. it was noted that the reason this issue was being discussed was due to a concern regarding projects being approved as either minor or major addition/remodels, and then during construction, all or most of the house is demolished and reconstructed resulting in what is essentially a new residence. This is of particular concern when a project such as Addison on Carillo Lane is approved based on existing circumstances, in this case, a highly visible lot that already had a second story. Had a new residence been proposed, a second story might not have been approved. Mr. Peterson suggested perhaps a standard condition of approval for remodels stating if during demolition more than (specify percent) is found to need to be removed, construction shall cease and project shall return to the Planning Commission. The need for a definition of a remodel and changes to the ordinance was discussed. Commissioners Schreiner, Sinunu and Stutz agreed to a 50% rule which would be defined as "a project would no longer be a remodel if more than half of the exterior walls are removed." Chairman Comiso, Commissioners Ellinger and Takamoto agreed that if it is rebuilt in the same location as approved, it would be acceptable, the reasoning being that the structure would probably be better rebuilt if there are termite problems or structural defects. I 6.2 City Attorney up -date regarding Amendments to the Brown Act. The Brown Act was discussed with no further information needed. The Draft Agenda for March 30th joint Meeting was provided to the Commissioners asking if there was anything else to add, please notify staff. OLD BUSINESS 7.1 General Plan Elements -Continued a. Land Use Element -Continued. �aw Planning Commission Minutes Approved 4/13/94 March 23,1994 Page 14 �W b. Circulation Element -Continued to March 23rd for report from the City Engineer. Mr. Peterson and Ms. Niles had provided a staff report regarding updating the Circulation Element. They were concerned with the amount of time involved for completion. Commissioner Schreiner had a few comments regarding the updating which she will provide to Mr. Peterson. C. Conservation Element -Continued - d. Scenic Highways Elements -Continued. e. Noise Element -Continued. f. Seismic Safety/Safety Elements -Continued. 9. Open Space Element -Continued. 8. APPROVAL OF MINUTES 8.1 Approval of the March 9, 1994 Minutes. 46v PASSED BY CONSENSUS: To approve the March 9,1994 Minutes with a change in wording on page 2, last sentence and with Commissioner Cheng absent. 9. REPORT FROM TLIE SITE DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE MEETING None. 10. ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned by consensus at 11:15 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Lam Lonberger Planning Secretary