Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout09/28/1994Approved 10/12/94 4w Minutes of a Regular Meeting Town of Los Altos Hills PLANNING COMMISSION Council cc: Cas: September 28,1994,7:00 P.M. mbers, 26379 Fremont Road ROLL CALL AND PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE Planning Commission meeting was called to order at 7:05 p.m. in the Council Chambers at Town Hall. Shelley Doran was sworn in as the new Planning Commissioner by the City Clerk. Present: Chairman Schreiner, Commissioners Cheng, McMahon, Gottlieb, Doran & Stutz Absent: Commissioner Comiso Staff: Linda Niles, Planning Director; Jeff Peterson, City Engineer; Suzanne Davis, Assistant Planner; Lani Lonberger, Planning Secretary 2. PRESENTATIONS FROM THE FLOOR The Planning Commission presented David Takamoto with a plaque from the Town of Los Altos Hills in recognition for his contributions as a Planning Commissioner . 3. CONSENT CALENDAR None. 4. REPORT FROM THE CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF SEPTEMBER 21.1994 4.1 Commissioner Gottlieb reported the following items were discussed: appointments to Town standing committees; approval of findings and conditions approving the Site Development Permit for a new residence and pool, Lands of Chen; and a variance was granted for the Lands of Medina. 4.2 Planning Commission Representative for October 5 will be Commissioner Gottlieb. 5. PUBLIC HEARINGS Planning Commission Minutes Approved 10/12/94 September 28, 1994 Page 2 4 5.1 LANDS OF NAGPAL, 28555 Matadero Creek Lane (99-94-ZP-SD); A request for a Site Development Permit for a secondary dwelling unit. Continued to the October 12th at the request of the applicant. 5.2 LANDS OF NGUYEN, 11632 Rebecca Lane (82-94-ZP-SD); A request for a Site Development Permit for an addition and pool (continued from June 22, 1994). Ms. Niles introduced this item, providing the Commission with a copy of the Owner's Certificate which does not mention restriction on the Human Habitation Setback; the second page noting Human Habitation Building Setback Line; and the recorded map showing the Human Habitation Setback across the rear of this property. The actual fault line is down the center of this 50 foot easement so the 25 feet on either side of the fault is a total of 50 feet. The swimming pool is located in the portion between the two setback lines. Ms. Niles also provided the Commission with the original conditions of approval for the tennis court, house addition, pool, tennis court and fence, and the approved checklist for the Dawson Tentative Map noting #2 of that document. Previously, the Planning Commission discussed what can and cannot be put into a Human Habitation Setback with comments taken to the City Council. Both the Planning Commission and the City Council felt that with a geologist report they would review on a case by case basis depending on what was being proposed in the Human Habitation Setback. The project being proposed requires a geotechnical report to be submitted for review by the Town geologist. The report and the recommendations from the geologist shall be reviewed and approved by the Town prior to acceptance of plans for building plan check. This project was continued from the meeting of June 22nd to allow the applicant to make modifications to the project (a small one story addition onto an existing two story single family dwelling and the construction of a pool in the Human Habitation Setback in the back yard of the lot) as requested by the Planning Commission. Ms. Niles noted that originally the addition, pool and tennis court were reviewed in 1992. At that time, a geotechnical report was not requested. Of the items reviewed, only the tennis court was requested and approved. Ms. Niles discussed the original landscaping requirements for screening of the tennis court. Chairman Schreiner asked if the six foot retaining wall was part of the original approve. Ms. Niles noted a change in the plan was approved for only a reduction in the tennis court size. A subsequent page included a retaining wall which the applicant thought was part of the approval. OPENED PUBLIC HEARING Chan Nguyen, 11632 Rebecca Lane, applicant, discussed the retaining wall noting the L building inspector approved the wall. One of the previous concerns of the Planning �✓ Commission was decking around the pool. Dr. Nguyen, at that time, felt the decking Planning Commission Minutes Approved 10/12/94 September 28,1994 Page 3 (40 could be accommodated around the pool by reducing the size of the pool. However, current plans do not show this reduction or decking. Larry Serta, 905 Commercial Street, San Jose, discussed the pool plan and the request by the applicant to design a pool structurally that would not need any cement rounded decking so the applicant could maximize the square footage of the pool. The plan shows the pool without any decking around it. He plans to have lawn around the pool. He also noted that there is not a walkway from the house. Although it is not common to build pools without decking, he has done four to five percent of pools this way. Chairman Schreiner clarified that development area was at its maximum. In order to add decking around the pool at a later date would require a variance. Commissioner Gottlieb felt very strongly about decking around a pool especially with children. She felt there should be at least two feet of decking around the pool. She would prefer to see the geologist report prior to approval. Commissioner McMahon noted there were no pool drawings showing the profile to see how the coping works. Mr. Serta noted that a standard pool structure is designed with the intent of having some decking around it. When you eliminate the decking, you therefore increase the amount of structural steel around the pool, giving it more strength. The 1989 Loma Prieta earthquake was discussed. Chairman Schreiner asked for clarity regarding the driveway design and the portion to d be removed and replaced by grasscrete. She felt there was far more paving in the 4/ setback then needed. Commissioner McMahon explained the hammerhead design for driveways. She also questioned the slope of the driveway as shown on plan being greater than noted. It was noted that the contour figures were incorrect. Richard Meyers, 624 E. Evelyn, Sunnyvale, applicant's representative, noted no problems with the conditions of approval. CLOSED PUBLIC HEARING Further discussion ensued regarding: explanation of the retaining wall; pool decking; pool in a quake zone; the need for more landscaping; why the three foot link fence was not replaced in black to match the tennis court fencing which was a condition for final approval; condition #14 correcting "Rebecca Lane" to 'Dawson Drive'; suggestion for three to four more oleanders spread out to conceal the fence from the property below on Rebecca Drive; suggested planting small leafed ivy on both ends of the tennis court and the back side along the house which would grow through the fence and eventually hang down on the wall; condition at least a two foot decking around one side and two ends of the pool by reducing the size of the pool; and the safety aspect of not requiring some kind of decking around the pool. Mr. Serta was asked to explain the coping as part of the pool itself noting the pool beam is 12 inches wide. What the Commission is requesting is an additional foot which would give the pool an apron of two feet. The L applicant is proposing to add the additional one foot to provide a total two foot apron Planning Commission Minutes Approved 10/12/94 September 28, 1994 Page 4 around one side and two ends of the pool. The pool will be reduced by development area needed for the additional one foot. The two Human Habitation Setbacks (two earthquake faults) were discussed further. Chairman Schreiner had reviewed the General Plan, Seismic Safety/Safety Element, as it relates to this project, reading a portion relating to "Where does the responsibility lie for protecting people and property?' She was concerned with this particular lot because the contour line show this pool at 342 elevation and the house at 336 or 338 elevation. If there was a very strong seismic shake in this area, there is a possibility of a rupture of the pool which would damage the house and possibly the neighbor's house. This was one of her concerns. She would like to separate the pool application from the house application, taking a vote on the pool and then a vote on the addition. Pool application was discussed noting the new swimming pool condition regarding fencing or other barrier required for safety in conformance with the State and local standards and the Uniform Building Code; and requiring a cross section of the pool and a geologic report due to the earthquake fault. It was felt the Commission needed more information before making a decision on the pool. MOTION SECONDED AND PASSED: Motion by Commissioner Gottlieb and seconded by Commissioner McMahon to continue the approval of the pool to review the 4L geotechnical report, review the construction plans, requiring an additional one foot of W decking around one side and two ends of the pool; and a cross section of the pool. The pool size shall be 18 feet by 37 feet as stated by Dr. Nguyen. AYES: Chairman Schreiner, Commissioners Stutz, Doran, McMahon, Gottlieb & Cheng NOES: None ABSENT: Commissioner Comiso This item is being continued to an undetermined time and will be re -noticed Discussion ensued regarding the minor addition. Commissioner McMahon requested the following changes: a drawing showing all the mitigation plantings that have been done; suggestion by Commissioner Stutz for three to four more oleanders spread out to conceal the fence from the property below on Rebecca Drive; suggested planting small leafed ivy on both ends of the tennis court and the back side along the house which would grow through the fence and eventually hang down on the wall; add landscaping deposit standard condition; condition #11, care in photographing the existing conditions of the pathway on Dawson should be taken; the height of the house should be indicated on Plan A3; and driveway area that will be replaced with grasscrete. MOTION SECONDED AND PASSED: Motion by Commissioner McMahon and seconded by Commissioner Cheng to approve the Site Development Permit for a minor addition as conditioned above. Planning Commission Minutes Approved 10/12/94 September 28, 1994 Page 5 AYES: Chairman Schreiner, Commissioners Gottlieb, Cheng, Stutz, Doran & McMahon NOES: None ABSENT: Commissioner Comiso This item will appear on the City Council consent calendar October 19, 1994. 5.3 LANDS OF FITZPATRICK, 25311 FREMONT ROAD (103-94-ZP-SD); A request for a Site Development Permit for a major addition, remodel and a secondary dwelling unit. Mrs. Davis introduced this item, noting a portion of the addition is in a flood plain and new plans were submitted for review as the Santa Clara Valley Water District required changes. The applicant has submitted a letter objecting to the driveway condition (#1) and the reduction of hardscape in setbacks. Mrs. Davis noted in the staff report that usually it is preferable not to have garage doors facing the street. However, in this case, it means adding a considerable amount of pavement within the setback. The approach to the new one -car garage is also adding pavement within the setback. The amount of hardscape within setbacks has been of recent concern to the Planning Commission. Staff recommended the approach to the existing garage be maintained instead of being moved to the rear as this would eliminate 1,245 square feet of paving, 745 square feet of which would be within the setback. OPENED PUBLIC HEARING John Fitzpatrick, 25311 Fremont Road, discussed the design of the project, keeping the project non -controversial; one story, low profile cottage that is not dominant. He felt the addition will be an improvement to the existing house design. He further discussed the reasons for changing the garage access, and the lengthy delay having the Santa Clara Valley Water District review the project. He noted that the driveway area proposed behind the garage will not be seen from any other lot as he plans to erect a fence along that property line; there is not any other housing adjacent to his proposed driveway area, being a flag lot entrance; having a garage door entrance 12 feet away from his front door is not architecturally acceptable on a house of this style; and he did not agree with the staff report regarding the garage entrance cannot being seen from the street, therefore not an eyesore which is not the case. Once the vegetation along Fremont Road is trimmed, the visibility of the garage will increase dramatically. He felt the issue of the driveway approach was last minute. He felt he was well within the MDA limits and he has adhered to Town ordinances. Mr. Fitzpatrick commented he had tried to design the project to meet Town codes, asking for what he needed; not asking for more than he needed. He felt the project has been delayed due to circumstances beyond his control. Chairman Schreiner commented on the huge expanse of hardscape in the setback that is (60 not just a driveway. The Commission's concern was that they are seeing this more Planning Commission Minutes Approved 10/12/94 September 28, 1994 Page 6 frequently and the code allows "a driveway". Commissioner Gottlieb read Sec. 10-1.216 'Driveway'. Commissioner McMahon asked if there was something that he could do to minimize the amount of hardscape and provide direct access to the garage. Mr. Fitzpatrick discussed alternatives. Commissioner McMahon asked if he would feel comfortable meeting with a few Commissioners to look at ways of modifying the driveway. It appears only the garages and driveways are in question. The goal is, whenever possible, to minimize the driveway. Mr. Fitzpatrick commented that he would prefer to modify the garage on the left side of the house rather than the one on the right. Further discussion ensued regarding the Santa Clara Valley Water District recommendation that the lowest finished floor for the secondary unit and a portion of the addition be a minimum of one foot above the 1%, flood plain. Commissioner McMahon noted that the secondary unit is six inches higher than it need be. Mr. Fitzpatrick would gladly lower the unit so the finished floor would be an elevation of 182 1/2 feet. In discussing the requirements of the SCVWD, Mr. Fitzpatrick suggested including their requirements on the Town check sheet. Richard Hartman, 1314 Lincoln Avenue, San Jose, architect, discussed the driveway design and only being a turn around for a two car garage. The request for the driveway extension within the setback (on the south side of the house) to be eliminated was a complete surprise to him. He noted that there was never a discussion of any other driveway design. Commissioner McMahon commented that the Commission wanted to work with the applicant regarding the driveway design as specified in the Design Guidelines Handbook. Tom Mantle, 25435 Fremont Road, liked the minimum design and supports the project. Leonard Robinson, Fremont Road, does not care about the driveway along the property line (on the right). He will not see the driveway nor will it be seen from the street. His lot is a flag lot with the driveway access adjacent to the area where the new driveway and garage access is proposed. Commissioner Gottlieb asked Mr. Robinson if he would consider sharing his access drive with Mr. Fitzpatrick. He responded yes, it is a possibility. CLOSED PUBLIC HEARING Discussion ensued. Commissioner Cheng sympathized with the applicant and everything he has gone through. She would approve the project as proposed. Commissioner Doran asked if the question was reducing hardscape or getting out of the setbacks? The applicant is willing to compromise on the left side of the garage and there are various ways of accomplishing this. The well property site is in the way and prevents him from coming in on that side. She felt the applicant has gone a long way to satisfy the Town. Ms. Niles responded, what she is hearing from the Commissioners is a concern for the additional hardscape in the setback and having the garage doors facing Planning Commission Minutes Approved 10/12/94 September 28, 1994 Page 7 the street. Commissioner McMahon asked for clarification regarding the well. She understands that it is a public utilities easement owned by someone else. Mr. Fitzpatrick commented he was working with the bank, trying to buy the easement. If he could buy it, he would be able to drive straight in. Commissioner McMahon noted the goal is to minimize hardscape in the setback. She felt once the vegetation in the front pathway area is trimmed, the garage would be more visible. Commissioner Gottlieb was more troubled with the left side of the property and would like the hardscape out of the setback. We have the 30 foot setbacks to maintain some openness. Commissioner Stutz noted that the Commission as a whole has never had a discussion regarding hardscape in setbacks or made any comments or have asked for any changes to the ordinance from the City Council. The backup area is part of the driveway. They just approved Bob Owen's project on Finn Lane and the driveway on lot 5 is right along the property line. The applicant has tried to comply with Town requirements and she did not agree with the comments she has been hearing from the other Commissioners. Commissioner Cheng agreed. Ms. Niles noted that the back up areas proposed are the minimum needed to adequately maneuver vehicles. The area proposed is needed if they want the garage doors away from the front. Commissioner Gottlieb felt they were setting up activity areas on two sides of the property which would infringe on their neighbors. MOTION SECONDED AND PASSED: Motion by Commissioner Stutz and seconded by Commissioner Cheng to approve the Site Development permit, changing condition #1 deleting the first two sentences; add to condition # 18 to change finished floor of the fit' second unit from 183 to 182 1/2 feet; modify condition 12 to state "barrier" instead of "fence"; add "a header shall put on the Fremont Road pathway facing the surface of the garage (gable end) so if the well property became available, the applicant could, at a future time, change his entrance. AYES: Commissioners McMahon, Cheng, Stutz & Doran NOES: Chairman Schreiner, Commissioner Gottlieb ABSENT: Commissioner Comiso This item will be on the City Council consent calendar October 19, 1994. 5.4 LANDS OF RUSSELL, 13331 Lennox Way (139-94-ZP-SD-CDP); A request for a Site Development Permit and a Conditional Development Permit for a minor addition/ remodel. Continued from September 28th to allow for re - noticing to include a Variance request. 5.5 LANDS OF BELDEN, 12033 Green Hills Court (152 -94 -SD -MOD); A request for a Site Development condition amendment to remove requirement to dedicate additional right-of-way. Ms. Niles introduced this item, providing the Commission with a copy that shows the right-of-way that would be taken for the cul-de-sac bulb as diagrammed. The dedication is still being recommended to be required at the cul-de-sac bulb which would take the lot Planning Commission Minutes Approved 10/12/94 September 28, 1994 Page 8 4 size below one acre. This would then eliminate his ability to ever have a secondary unit. Chairman Schreiner complimented Sheryl Kolf in the engineering department for her very helpful report. She noted that this application and the next two are very similar . They are policies of the Town so the Commission is to direct staff on their recommendations. Ms. Niles noted that the issue of the right-of-way on the straight of way is the policy. The cul-de-sac requirement for right-of-way is a standard (ordinance). This is why they would have to recommend that the City Council look into changing the ordinance. The Beldens were conditioned to dedicate right-of-way on the frontage and the cul-de-sac bulb. Commissioner Gottlieb asked if relieving the applicants of this particular condition were they giving them more consideration then others in Town? Ms. Niles responded no. Policy states that in a case were a certain percentage of the rest of the road has not granted any dedication, it may be possible that they do not take the dedication on that street. Commissioner Stutz commented that the Roses' on Prospect Road lot size was taken below one acre when they had to give a right-of-way. This was due to subdividing prior to 1973. The properties coming in tonight are definitely not under this rule (subdivided after 1973). Ms. Niles agreed. OPENED PUBLIC HEARING Peter Duxbury, 545 Byron Street, Palo Alto, architect, presented an overhead diagram and discussed the original addition, nine percent of the property being dedicated and a Lpossible secondary unit. The dedication would prohibit a secondary unit because it fir' reduces the Lot Unit Factor below 1 acre. In order to have a secondary unit, they would have to apply for a variance. In Mr. Duxbury's letter, he noted that the street is not part of the pathways program. Commissioner Gottlieb disagreed noting this is a pathway with a very important link between Moody and Altamont and used by school children. Mr. Duxbury further commented that by dedication the 10 feet around the cul-de-sac bulb, it changes the area around the Beldens property to .987 acres. Their goal is to put a secondary unit on the property. He felt the cul-de-sac was fully resolved, very untraveled, and six of the eight properties are already maxed out. It does not appear to be an area of much change. No other properties have had to make this dedication. Commissioner McMahon asked if a Public Utilities Easement was counted differently than a pathway easement. Ms. Niles responded a pathway and public utility easements are not deducted from their net acreage. Access easements are deducted. It was noted that the pathway is on the other side of the street. They would not need a pathway easement on this side of the street. They would only need a public utility easement, if they do not have it. Chairman Schreiner asked the City Engineer if they have consistently followed this policy in Town in taking right-of-way on cul-de-sac bulbs of this type? Mr. Peterson responded yes. Chairman Schreiner noted that they would need two more lots coming in with a major addition, remodel or a new house in order to complete the road right-of- way dedication around the rest of the cul-de-sac. Commissioner Stutz did not know of any reason why they were asking for a right-of-way dedication around the cul-de-sac as Planning Commission Minutes Approved 10/12/94 September 28, 1994 Page 9 it is not a hard bulb to turn around in. Ms. Niles noted if the Commission agrees, they could make the recommendation that Council consider that this be looked into. However, this is the ordinance section. Council would have to direct staff to go back and revise the ordinance. As a separate issue, the Commission should address the right- of-way request that is regarded in the right-of-way policy. If they support staff recommendation which is in their report, then it can be approved that way. It does not have to go back for a revision. However, staff would like and will be taking to the Council a request to make the right-of-way policy a standard (ordinance) because policies are not standards. Leigh Belden, 12033 Green Hills Court, applicant, felt Mr. Duxbury explained the situation very well. He noted that his neighbors have no problem with this request. CLOSED PUBLIC HEARING Mr. Peterson, City Engineer, discussed the philosophy of the Town requesting dedication of road right-of-ways. The policy was set up for areas like this that are developed fully. However, in reviewing the policy there is no mention of cul-de-sac bulbs. He was not sure if it was overlooked or was intentionally not placed in the code. Presently the Municipal Code requires a 100 foot diameter or a 50 foot radius cul-de-sac bulbs. Part of the reason for that is that the Municipal Code specifically requires a 32 L foot diameter which is the requirement for fire engines. If this was a new subdivision, 4/ the Town would require a 60 foot radius on the cul-de-sac bulb. The policy is striving to bring right-of-way widths up to code, yet making exceptions for small, local streets and cul-de-sac bulbs. However, there has not been any provision for the actual bulb at the end were a 100 foot diameter, 50 foot radius is required. He further discussed the right- of-way policy. MOTION SECONDED, AMENDED AND DEFEATED: Motion by Commissioner Gottlieb and seconded by Commissioner Cheng to uphold the recommendation noted in the staff report modifying condition 13 as follows: The applicants shall dedicate ten (10) feet of right-of-way on Green Hills Court along the cul-de-sac bulb. A plat and legal description shall be submitted to the Engineering Department for preparation of the dedication agreement, and the signed, notarized document shall be returned to the Town prior to acceptance of plans for building plan check. A 10' wide public utility easement along the remaining leg of the cul -e -sac shall be granted. Ms. Niles clarified that the only portion that is being dedicated is the additional right-of- way needed on the cul-de-sac bulb per the Municipal Code requirement. The right-of- way along the whole frontage of the property is not being requested, just an easement 4L. for utility purposes because the right-of-way policy allows for an exception in a case like bw this. 4 Planning Commission Minutes Approved 10/12/94 September 28, 1994 Page 10 Discussion ensued. Commissioner Stutz noted she was on the Road Right-of-way Policy Committee and did not recall any discussion regarding cul-de-sacs. At the time, the committee did give a list of definitions of roads; right-of-way, arterial, collector, local cul-de-sac, and short cul-de-sac. She discussed numbers 2 and 3 on page 3; a new local street or cul-de-sac created by a subdivision, and a new short cul-de-sac created by a subdivision. They were exempting the cul-de-sacs that were already built out with the same setback. She asked for a clarification of the statement on page 959 of the Municipal Code, noting "turning circles at the end of cul-de-sac streets shall have a road way radius of not less than 32 feet except those in mountainous and hillside areas it can be reduced to 22 feet. Mr. Peterson noted that is the actual paved surface that the fire engine physically needs to drive on to have a turn around. Commissioner Stutz asked why they need to require the 60 feet in the cases were these are already built, all with the same kind of road right-of-way. Mr. Peterson noted that the reason they are requiring it is because it is a requirement in the Town Municipal Code. He felt the cul-de-sac bulb issue had not been discussed at the time of the 1989 right-of-way policy because there was consideration for built out streets but they did not address the bulb. Ms. Niles noted the another option for the Planning Commission other then the motion on the floor would be to forward to Council requesting Council to direct staff to re- review the ordinance on particular roads to make it consistent with the right-of-way policy, if as Commissioner Stutz explained, she felt the right-of-way policy addresses not only leg but the cul-de-sac bulb as it was not clearly written that way. AYES: Commissioner Gottlieb NOES: Chairman Schreiner, Commissioners Doran, McMahon, Cheng & Stutz ABSENT: Commissioner Comiso MOTION SECONDED AND PASSED: Motion by Commissioner Doran and seconded by Commissioner Cheng to recommend that the City Council direct staff to re -review the cul-de-sac ordinance for making it consistent with the right-of-way policy and direct staff to return with the road right-of-way policy and ordinance. AYES: Chairman Schreiner, Commissioners Doran, McMahon, Gottlieb & Cheng NOES: None ABSENT: Commissioner Comiso This will be a public hearing item on the City Council agenda on October 19, 1994. 5.6 LANDS OF LEBEAU, 12795 Normandy Lane (141 -94 -MOD); A request for Site Development condition amendment to remove requirement to dedicate additional right-of-way. Chairman Schreiner asked the City Engineer for clarification of Normandy Lane asking if it was private or public. Ms. Niles noted that the cul-de-sac bulb where the LeBeau Planning Commission Minutes Approved 10/12/94 September 28, 1994 Page 11 and Corrigan properties are located was the original Normandy Lane and that portion is public. At a later date, the road was extended with the additional cul-de-sac bulb which is private. The City Engineer noted that the majority of Normandy Lane straight -way is 40 feet wide. The applicants have already dedicated a 10 foot right-of-way on Normandy Lane. The lot was 1.009 acres, but has been reduced to .994 acres due to the required 10 foot right-of-way dedication on the Normandy Lane frontage. Commissioner Stutz again discussed the 1989 road right-of-way policy thought process, wanting to keep as many legal lots in Town as possible. OPENED PUBLIC HEARING Scott Davis, 4856 El Camino Real, Los Altos, architect, asked for clarification regarding public utility easements. He asked if the property owners still retain ownership of the property with an easement. Mr. Peterson responded yes, however utility easements are used only for utilities. Mr. Davis felt the dedication was not requested as a safety issue. This is a short cul-de-sac. He further discussed promoting open space area; easements; taking property; changing the ordinance; the house already in the setback; conflicting ordinances; Superior Court case dated June 24, 1994; properties not being treated equally; cul-de-sacs being treated differently from roadways; intent of the ordinance without adversely impacting people at a different magnitude on every project; and the open space issue. He suggested Council review. Commissioner Gottlieb did not feel the Town ever gives back dedications. Greg Randall, landscape architect for the LeBeau's, discussed the letter in the staff report from Mr. and Mrs. Lemasters. Mr. Randall felt they were of the opinion that by their support of the dedication that the parking and congestion would improve which is not the case. He noted that the dedication has already been accepted. They would like to reverse the dedication. The lot was 1.009 acres and has been reduced to .994 acres. Also noted was that the property is maxed out. He requested the Commission to recommend to the Council to relieve them of this dedication. Dan Thompson, 681 Oak Grove, Menlo Park, architect for the Corrigans, discussed the dedication. Chairman Schreiner noted that the dedication is a policy in Town and the connections will not happen overnight. How would the Town provide the necessary services if they did not require dedications? He felt, in essence, the Town is stealing 10 feet of property. He is not objecting to pathway or public utility easements. He objected to the property just being taken which devalues the property. Chairman Schreiner explained these easements, dedications and road right-of-ways have been taken throughout the Town ever since it was incorporated and there have been many people who have given these dedications and easements which have all been done according to Town code. Mr. Thompson discussed the Lemasters letter noting that he felt they were _ under the misconception that the roads will automatically be widened and emergency 4r vehicles will have easier access. Planning Commission Minutes Approved 10/12/94 September 28, 1994 Page 12 CLOSED PUBLIC HEARING Ms. Niles noted for clarification that they were also making a recommendation on whether they feel certain short cul-de-sacs or certain developed roads would need the widening of the cul-de-sac bulb or the road. She commented that the right-of-way policy recommends not taking the dedication on the straight-away if the rest of the road has not made any dedications. This is what the Commission will be asking of the Council as well. MOTION SECONDED AND PASSED: Motion by Commissioner Gottlieb and seconded by Commissioner McMahon requesting the City Council to direct staff to re -review the cul-de-sac ordinance and right-of-way policy and make them consistent and review the policy for making it an ordinance; and make a recommendation on whether they feel certain short cul-de-sacs or certain developed roads would need the widening of the cul- de-sac bulb or the road. AYES: Chairman Schreiner, Commissioners Cheng, Doran, McMahon & Gottlieb NOES: None ABSTAIN: Commissioner Stutz ABSENT: Commissioner Comiso This will be a public hearing item on the City Council agenda on October 19, 1994. 5.7 LANDS OF CORRIGAN, 12797 Normandy Lane (142 -94 -MOD; A request for a Site Development condition amendment to remove requirement to dedicate additional right-of-way. Staff had nothing further to add to the staff report. OPENED PUBLIC HEARING Dan Thompson, 681 Oak Grove, Menlo Park, architect for the Corrigans, noted this application was different from the previous application as the Corrigans have not dedicated the 10 foot wide road right-of-way as yet. CLOSED PUBLIC HEARING MOTION SECONDED AND PASSED: Motion by Commissioner McMahon and seconded by Commissioner Gottlieb requesting the City Council to direct staff to re- review the cul-de-sac ordinance and right-of-way policy and make them consistent and review the policy for making it an ordinance; and make a recommendation on whether [ they feel certain short cul-de-sacs or certain developed roads would need the widening of the cul-de-sac bulb or the road. Planning Commission Minutes Approved 10/12/94 September 28, 1994 Page 13 AYES: Chairman Schreiner, Commissioners Doran, McMahon, Gottlieb & Doran NOES: None ABSTAIN: Commissioner Stutz ABSENT: Commissioner Comiso This will be a public hearing item on the City Council agenda on October 19, 1994. Brief break at 10:30 p.m. 6. NEW BUSINESS 6.1 Rescheduling of the November 23rd meeting to November 28th. PASSED BY CONSENSUS: To reschedule the November 23rd meeting to November 28th with Commissioner Comiso absent. 6.2 Cancellation of the December 28th meeting. PASSED BY CONSENSUS: To cancel the December 28th meeting. 6.3 Review conditions of approval for the Lands of Kim, 12005 Finn Lane, L approved September 14, 1994, The Commission reviewed the conditions of approval with recommended expanded wording on conditions 1, 13 and 18. 6.4 Review conditions of approval for the Lands of Finn, 12001 Finn Lane, approved September 14, 1994. The Commission reviewed the conditions of approval with recommended expanded wording on conditions 6 and 11. OLD BUSINESS 7.1 General Plan Elements -Schedule for work sessions. The next meeting was scheduled for October 20th at 5:30 p.m. to discuss Conservation and Open Space Elements. 7.2 Procedures for enforcing the completion of landscape requirements and use of landscape deposits. Continued. 7.3 Color Board. Continued. [ Planning Commission Minutes Approved 10/12/94 September 28, 1994 Page 14 4W 7.4 Discussion of Planning Commission meeting time. There were several suggestions discussed including stopping the meeting at 11:30 p.m.; limiting the public hearing items; a time period for each project, and limiting the time for each speaker. 8. APPROVAL OF MINUTES 8.1 Approval of the September 14, 1994 Minutes. PASSED BY CONSENSUS: To approve the September 14th minutes with the following changes: page 4, correction to the spelling of Katy Stella's name; and page 14, second paragraph, third sentence to read "It should be inside the property line and conservation easement boundary line." with Commissioner Doran abstaining and Commissioner Comiso absent. 9. REPORT FROM THE SITE DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE MEETING OF SEPTEMBER 27, 1994 9.1 LANDS OF HALL, 26070 Newbridge Drive; A request for a Site Development Permit for a landscaping plan. Approved with conditions. 10. ADiOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned by consensus at 11:30 p.m. Tully submitted, Lani Lonberger t/ Planning Secretary 4W