Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout04/26/2000Minutes of a Regular Meeting Approved 5/10/00 Town of Los Altos Hills PLANNING COMMISSION Wednesday, April 26, 2000, 7:00 p.m. Council Chambers, 26379 Fremont Road cc: Cassettes (2) #8-00 1. ROLL CALL AND PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE The Planning Commission meeting was called to order at 7:02 p.m. in the Council Chambers at Town Hall. Present: Commissioners Gottlieb, Jinkerson, Cottrell, Wong & Schreiner Staff: Curtis Williams, Planning Director; Ola Balogun, Associate Engineer, Lam Smith, Planning Secretary 2. PRESENTATIONS FROM THE FLOOR Liz Dana, 25700 Bassett Lane, questioned the rationale regarding counting the first and second floor in the floor and development calculations. She is currently working on plans for a very steep lot and felt they were only disturbing a certain amount of land. The code was explained by the Planning Director. She will be meeting with a Planner next Monday to further review her project. Anshel Schiff, 27750 Edgerton Road, discussed a problem he is experiencing with people on horseback with their dogs who have been chasing the cats on his property asking if there was anything he could do. Chairman Jinkerson mentioned the leash law, suggesting he speak to Town staff regarding possible remedies. 3. PUBLIC HEARINGS 3.1 LANDS OF BIRNBAUM, 27760 Edgerton Road (75 -00 -Permit Modification); A request for a Site Development Permit Modification requesting deletion of a condition of approval which required the installation of a IIB path adjacent to Edgerton Road. The Planning Director introduced this item by noting the receipt of a letter from Mr. and Mrs. Cheek, 27525 Edgerton Road. Discussion ensued regarding the area in front of the Birnbaum residence which is public and what is the usual Town required width of a street. Mr. Balogun stated the width of the existing pavement is 21.5 feet in the Birnbaum location which is just about right. Planning Commission Minutes Approved 5/10/00 April 26, 2000 Page 2 Commissioner Gottlieb asked if the pathway was to be installed at the time of the subdivision improvements as this is a major pathway. The answer was unknown. She thought perhaps pavement was put over the path. She suggested either taking up a little bit of the pavement for a three to four foot path and/or to stripe and roughen the road to prevent pedestrians and equestrians from slipping. Mr. Balogun felt this possibility could be reviewed. OPENED PUBLIC HEARING Safwat Malek, 101 First Street, Los Altos, project architect and representative, discussed the original conditions of approval. After careful examination of how they could meet the condition (#20) and reviewing the physical conditions, it was determined that there was no practical way to construct a path. It was felt that the best alternative was to pay a pathway fee in -lieu of constructing a Type IIB pathway along Edgerton Road. Given the nature of the street, the practicality of ever having a pathway throughout the whole street is very limited. Mr. Birnbaum, 27760 Edgerton Road, applicant, noted that the problem is that there are seven houses between them and the top of the street. They have lived there for 20 years. He did not feel there was much of a chance for other path connections. They did consider placing a path on the other side of the street but was told it would be even more difficult to construct. Building a retaining wall and taking down 20 year old trees seems impractical. There is already a major path along one entire length of his property which comes up from the Page Mill Road area. This new path would be on the front side, only adding 100 feet to the path. Nancy Ewald, Pathways Committee, read a portion of a letter addressed to Curtis Williams, dated July 14, 1999, which notes three ways that a path could be constructed parallel to Edgerton Road (Attachment 4 or the staff report). She felt this was a very important connection. Les Ernest, 12769 Dianne Drive, was the Pathway Committee Chair at the time of the original application when the three recommendations were presented. A fundamental problem is that pine trees were planted in the area where the pathway should be. Some of the trees could be removed. There is not a good alternative because of the steep bank on the other side. He noted the importance of the pathway connection to Edgerton/Three Forks path. Regarding no other pathway segments in the area, this is true in many places. The thought that having a partial path is useless is incorrect. It does provide a sanctuary if there is oncoming traffic to get out of the way. Because of all these reasons, he felt the Commission should continue with the original plan to construct the path adjacent to the road, removing a few trees, and if desired, plant more. Diane Barrager, Pathways Committee, stated this is an important area for hikers and horse back riders. There is a real need for a path although she can see the difficulty with the pathway construction. However, this is an important link. There must be some way to put the path in so it is not a hardship on the applicants. Sawfat Malek stated they are all trying to solve the same problem. There has been an attempt in f good faith to resolve the location and to put it in without retaining walls. He liked Commissioner �/ Gottlieb's idea. Planning Commission Minutes Approved 5/10/00 April 26, 2000 Page 3 Mr. Balogun stated they could look at the suggestions. His main concern was safety. Commissioner Gottlieb felt they should be able to work something out without tree removal. Nancy Ewald asked that the trees be trimmed high enough for riders. CLOSED PUBLIC HEARING Chairman Jinkerson asked if they could send this back to be reviewed by staff, the applicants, and the Pathway Committee to work out a solution. He did like Commissioner Gottlieb's idea also. The Planning Director agreed although the striping may not be acceptable to engineering. Bumpers in the middle of the road were discussed. Mr. Malek is willing to do whatever is reasonable (no retaining walls or tree removal). Commissioner Gottlieb suggested using the foot or two of dirt on the side of the road with the removal of only two tree stumps, trimming some branches high enough for riders, and roughening the road with bump strips. Commissioner Cottrell agreed with Commissioner Gottlieb as he was opposed to removing trees. Commissioner Wong also agreed. Commissioner Schreiner stated there are many good compromises. The path three to four feet in some areas is acceptable. Do as much as possible to make it safe. MOTION SECONDED AND PASSED: Motion by Commissioner Gottlieb and seconded by Commissioner Cottrell to resolve the location of the pathway to the satisfaction of staff, the applicants and the pathway committee, Lands of Birnbaum, 27760 Edgerton Road, with the Planning Director reporting the results to the Planning Commission. AYES: Chairman Jinkerson, Commissioners Schreiner, Wong, Cottrell &Gottlieb NOES: None 3.2 Proposed Ordinance of the Town of Los Altos Hills amending Sections 10-1.502 (Development Area) and 10-1.503 (Floor Area) of the Zoning Code to modify the minimum development area and floor area allowed on constrained lots, including lots requiring a Conditional Development Permit; and proposed Negative Declaration. OPENED PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED PUBLIC HEARING Commissioner Gottlieb asked the Planning Director to walk the Commission through the calculations for a constrained lot with a lot unit factor of 0.50. Discussion ensued regarding the formula using 0.50 and 0.40 lot unit factor with slopes less than 20%, and 0.40 lot unit factor with slopes over 20%, and reviewing the charts provided in the staff report. Commissioner Schreiner would like to make sure that the concept of a one acre minimum is endorsed by everyone in Town (6,000/15,000). When reviewing what has been approved on Conditional Development lots, percentage wise, the smaller lots get more than anyone else in Town. She would like the numbers brought down further as it is bothersome that a lot below .50 gets 3,500 square feet (floor area). Regarding a minimum square footage on the constrained lots, Planning Commission Minutes Approved 5/10/00 April 26, 2000 Page 4 the Planning Director noted that it was added in the Ordinance that there would not be a guaranteed minimum but it would allow the Commission and/or Council to approve up to 2,000 square feet of floor area and 4,500 square feet of development area without requiring a variance. If a lot that was so restricted and they still wanted higher numbers, they would have to justify it through the variance findings. Commissioner Schreiner asked if he felt the original calculations of development area (2,500 square feet) were applicable in view of a possible new Ordinance with a driveway only 10 feet wide with a savings of 400 square feet less. The Planning Director felt that there was certainly justification for reducing the 2,500 square foot number to 2,100 although he did not feel everyone was going to be able to use or benefit from that number. There will be driveways, especially on the steeper lots, where engineering and the Fire Department will not allow the use of alternative materials for the additional two feet on the sides. Commissioner Schreiner thought the Fire Department would prefer a 12 foot wide driveway asking if this has been discussed. Mr. Williams noted it had been discussed at the last Council meeting but the Fire Department was willing to live with the 10 feet as long as they can continue to review each project and decide if a project would need more than 10 feet so they would have an opportunity to state same. The Council deferred the discussion until the Fire Department can discuss it at a meeting which will probably be at the May 18i4 meeting. He did not feel this would be a uniformly applied reduction in development. Commissioner Schreiner would not want the potential for reduction in driveway width to be retroactive. Chairman Jinkerson appreciated all the work put into the report by the Planning Director. However, the issue came up with the property on Rhus Ridge Road when the Council discussed narrowing the driveway to 10 feet, then having two feet on either side in a semi permeable surface. He never understood the reasoning for having these huge fire trucks that are great for fighting fires in Los Altos but much too wide for the Hills. They should have keep the smaller trucks for the Hills so the request for wider driveways would not be necessary. The Council has now re -visited this which impacts what they are doing regarding turnarounds (over 400 square feet) and the 100 feet with the exception of a driveway with four feet which is another 400 feet (potential advantage of 800 feet). An example: a level one acre lot (6,000 MFA and 15, 000 MDA) and a steep lot both only count the first 100 feet of driveway from the garage face. He was troubled with the 400 feet for the driveway and the 400 feet for the turnaround. He does not imagine many of the challenged lots having a fire turnaround. The Ordinance works if they say you remove the 400 feet and either have a new provision or have an understanding that for those lots that do not get the 400 feet, they get back the 400 feet in other development area. They should reduce the 2,500 MFA to 2,100; 6,500 MDA to 6,100 with a provision which gives back the 400 square feet if the Fire Department requires the 14 foot width be paved. Strengthen the wording and add "if required" in the turnaround wording. Suggested wording: the additional width above 10 feet that is paved up to a maximum of 14 feet is added into the development area calculations. Commissioner Schreiner was bothered that a lot under .50 lot unit factor gets 3,500 square feet of floor area. It was clarified that they were actually giving the applicants 3,100 square feet of house and 400 square feet of garage. Wording was discussed noting a maximum of 3,100 square feet of floor area plus 400 square feet for an enclosed garage Planning Commission Minutes Approved 5/10/00 April 26, 2000 Page 5 MOTION SECONDED AND PASSED: Motion by Commissioner Cottrell and seconded by Commissioner Schreiner to recommend to the City Council adoption of the Negative Declaration and approval of the draft Ordinance, as modified by the Commission; Section 1 under development area adding a provision so only when the Fire Department requires the turnaround; and Item 2, changing 6,500 square feet to 6,100 square feet unless the Fire Department requires driveway paving wider than 10 feet; and Item 3, changing 2,500 square feet to 2,100 square feet unless the Fire Department requires a driveway wider than 10 feet. The additional pavement would be allowed up to 400 square feet. AYES: Chairman Jinkerson, Commissioners Gottlieb, Wong, Schreiner & Cottrell NOES: None This item will appear on a future City Council agenda. 3.3 Proposed Ordinance of the Town of Los Altos Hills amending Section 10-1.501 (Minimum Parcel Size) of the Zoning Code and Section 9-1.604 (Lot Size and Requirements) to prohibit irregularly shaped lots; and proposed Negative Declaration. The Planning Director introduced this item by providing the history behind the recommended Ordinance. Discussion ensued regarding the "width less than sixty (60) feet' to determine if this was an adequate number. The proposed Ordinance is to more clearly provide a basis to prohibit the creation of awkward lot configurations. OPENED PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED PUBLIC HEARING MOTION SECONDED AND PASSED: Motion by Commissioner Schreiner and seconded by Commissioner Wong to recommend to the City Council adoption of the Negative Declaration and approval of the draft Ordinance. AYES: Chairman Jinkerson, Commissioners Cottrell, Gottlieb, Wong, & Schreiner NOES: None This item will appear on a future City Council agenda. 4. OLD BUSINESS 4.1 Report from subcommittees. Commissioner Schreiner stated the Land Use Element meeting will be next Wednesday to discuss the revised draft community preferences survey, cover letter, and General Plan Primer. She asked for the status on Lands of Baratta which was provided by the Planning Director. Commissioner Gottlieb noted that the Town Picnic will be held May 21" with a pathway walk at 11:30 a.m. She also asked staff to ` investigate the pathway on Ravensbury Road that was to be installed with the two new projects ` on Lomita Linda Court. Planning Commission Minutes April 26, 2000 Page 6 5. NEW BUSINESS -none Approved 5110100 6. REPORT FROM THE CITY COUNCIL MEETING 6.1 Planning Commission Representative for April 201h -meeting canceled 6.2 Planning Commission Representative for May 4e - Commissioner Gottlieb 7. APPROVAL OF MINUTES 7.1 Approval of April 12, 2000 minutes PASSED BY CONSENSUS: To approve the April 12, 2000 minutes with minor changes, Commissioner Cottrell abstaining. 8. REPORT FROM SITE DEVELOPMENT MEETING- APRIL 18 & 25. 2000 8.1 LANDS OF LIN, 25911 Elena Road (327-99-ZP-SD); A request for a Site Development Permit for a new driveway. Approved with conditions April 18, 2000. 8.2 LANDS OF CLEVINGER, 14400 Kingsley Way (66-00-ZP-SD); A request for a Site Development Permit for a pool and decking. Approved with conditions April 25, 2000. 8.3 LANDS OF CAMPBELL & LIGETI, 13902 Campo Vista Lane (93-00-ZP- ZP- SD); A request for a Site Development Permit for a gate and driveway. Approved with conditions April 25, 2000. Pi The meeting was adjourned by consensus at 9:00 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Yani Smith Planning Secretary