Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout07/26/2000L� Minutes of a Regular Meeting Approved 8/9/00 Town of Los Altos Hills PLANNING COMMISSION Wednesday, July 26, 2000, 7:00 p.m. Council Chambers, 26379 Fremont Road cc: Cassettes (2) #14-00 ROLL CALL AND PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE The Planning Commission meeting was called to order at 7:00 p.m. in the Council Chambers at Town Hall. Present: Commissioners Cottrell, Vitu, Gottlieb, Clow & Wong Staff: Carl Cahill, Acting Planning Director; Jim Rasp, Public Works Manager; Lam Smith, Planning Secretary 2. REORGANIZATION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION ` PASSED BY CONSENSUS: Commissioner Cottrell as Planning Commission Chairman; Commissioner Wong as Planning Commission Vice -Chair. 3. PRESENTATIONS FROM THE FLOOR -none 4. PUBLIC HEARINGS 4.1 LANDS OF HOFING, 26045 Torello Lane (160 -00 -PERMIT MODIFICATION); A request for Permit Modification to approved Site Development Permit regarding construction of a Type IIB pathway adjacent to Torello Lane. Staff introduced this item by providing a brief history of the original project. The applicant currently has an installed pathway along Manuella Road. Jim Rasp discussed the July 61h City Council meeting at which time he reviewed path in -lieu fees, impact fees and the need to periodically review the pathway fees and their modification as necessary to account for inflation and expense. He noted that the average cost of a pathway construction for the Town is $66 per lineal foot and he will be recommending an increase in the fee schedule to reflect actual cost to the Town. The $7.00 per lineal foot is for properties who do not need to install a pathway but contribute to the overall pathway system. He would eventually recommend this fee to be increased to $33.00 per lineal foot. He further discussed what it takes to build a path (actual cost). Mr. Cahill noted the two issues before the Commission: should the applicant construct a path; should he pay the $7.00 per lineal foot fee. OPENED PUBLIC HEARING Planning Commission Minutes Approved 8/9/00 July 26, 2000 Page 2 Bill Holing, 26045 Torello Lane, applicant, discussed neighbor support regarding not constructing the path on Torello Lane. He was willing to pay the current in -lieu fee of $7.00 per lineal foot. He further provided a history of the project and felt a pathway on Torello Lane would serve no purpose. It would also destroy some front yard vegetation. He clarified that the area in front of his neighbor's property is not a path but an area for the neighbor's guests to use for puking so the cars are slightly off the road. He has contacted most of his neighbors who were not in favor of a pathway on this very short cul-de-sac. Les Ernest, Pathways Committee, provided a history of the project and the Committee's recommendation at the time of approval which was accepted by the applicants. He felt if the Commission approves the request to not install the pathway, they should expect more such requests. CLOSED PUBLIC Commissioner Clow understood that being close to a school would be an element to have a path but he felt a four foot path would be out of character there. It does not appear anyone (neighbors included) want the pathway. He was in favor of not recommending the construction and simply having the applicant pay the current in -lieu fee of $7.00 per lineal foot. Commissioner Vim agreed. The neighborhood does not support the request and there is low traffic on Torello Lane. It would also impact the mature vegetation and mail box. Commissioner Wong questioned the original request for the pathway which was answered by Les Ernest. He stated the Committee was following the Pathway Element of the General Plan which calls for a pathway on cul-de-sacs with more than six residences. The pathway is not being built for the current owner but for the long term. Mr. Cahill noted that in the Pathway Element both the Planning Commission and the City Council have the authority to determine whether a pathway will serve a useful purpose in the near future and for that reason the construction of the pathway can be deferred. Commissioner Gottlieb discussed pathways which are the Town's sidewalks. She further discussed the $7.00 per lineal foot fee versus the proposed $66.00 as mentioned by Jim Rasp. She asked if they should pay the fee when the City Council agrees on the amount? She further noted that there was a safety issue. Mr. Rasp felt the current fee schedule should be followed. Chairman Cottrell supports the pathway system except for ones that go nowhere. There is very little traffic on Torello Lane and the neighbors object to the construction. MOTION SECONDED AND PASSED: Motion by Commissioner Clow and seconded by Commissioner Vitu to approve the applicant's request for a permit modification to the approved Site Development Permit regarding construction of a Type IIB pathway adjacent to Torello Lane, Lands of Hofing, 26045 Torello Lane. The property owner shall pay an in -lieu fee of $7.00 per linear foot which is based on the current rate as listed in the Town fee schedule. Findings for the approval as follows: numerous letters from the neighbors stating the pathway is not desired; and the proposed pathway will not lead to any other pathway. AYES: Chairman Cottrell, Commissioners Wong, Clow & Vito NOES: Commissioner Gottlieb �r This approval is subject to a 22 day appeal period. Planning Commission Minutes July 26, 2000 Page 3 Approved 8/9/00 4.2 INTERPRETATION OF SETBACK REQUIREMENT FROM HALE CREEK; LOTS 5-10 OF THE QUARRY HILLS SUBDIVISION (TRACT NO. 8872). Staff introduced this item by noting a previous meeting with the City Manager and City Attorney regarding this subject along with a contract planner who researched the file. Unfortunately, the City Attorney did not have enough time before this meeting to state her position in writing. Based on research and discussions with the City Attorney, he believed the required 25 foot buffer of local native woody species can be accommodated within the existing 25 foot conservation easement (south side) adjacent to reclamation planting within the bypass channel banks. This approach is consistent with the Site Development Ordinance Section 10-2.702(e) Creek Protection. The Commission should decide if they should add another 10 feet of conservation easement for approximately 35 feet or would the 25 feet suffice. He discussed the normal procedure for amending an FIR but what is before the Commission is not an amendment. He felt the key issue was "reclamation planting" and where they start. Commissioner Gottlieb would have preferred a statement from the City Attorney. It was noted that the Commission will be making a recommendation to the City Council which will allow time for the City Attorney's statement. Mr. Cahill continued, noting this is not a condition of the subdivision but a statement contained in the CC&R's which was a condition of the subdivision. There is no condition requiring this in the subdivision conditions of approval. There is a requirement for a conservation easement and drainage easement over the Hale Creek bypass channel from lots 5 through 11. Twenty-five feet is consistent with Town Ordinance. OPENED PUBLIC HEARING Harry Emerzian, 11670 Dawson Drive, has researched with conditions of approval for the subdivision from 1988 to 1995 when it was completed. He noted that much money and time was spent by the Town prior to the subdivision approval. He has spoken to the Regional Quality Water Board and the Fish and Game Department and others. Those are State requirements. He did not see anyone here representing either of these agencies regarding reducing the conservation easement by 10 feet. He has spoken to many people who were involved in this development including Jeff Peterson. There has been a lot of documentation to reach this point. What has changed since the time it was going through the approval process over the last four to five years? He stated only people. When does an issue get settled? The only thing that has changed is that people want to build on more property. He did not feel the conservation easement should be reduced. When speaking on the phone to the Regional Quality Water Board regarding the EIR, they asked what has the Town of Los Altos Hills reviewed regarding the biological issues and whether they were addressed in this report. He could not answer this question. He was only one neighbor who is not in support of a reduction of the conservation easement. Putting more building on a creek bed is not desirable. The conservation easement is for the protection of the creek. Harry Mittelman, 12100 Kate Drive, felt there was no practical reason given as to why this additional 10 feet would benefit Fish and Game. There is an easement which extends 100 feet all the way up the hill that including the area referred to as a creek; in the real plans it is referred to as a drainage ditch. This is not a real natural creek. It is a drainage ditch that has been Planning Commission Minutes Approved 8/9/00 July 26, 2000 Page 4 redesigned for aesthetic purposes. There is already an enormous amount of land that these residents are being required to or asked to forfeit and gift to the Town and the State. The additional 10 feet serves no purpose. He felt a large amount of land is taken in setbacks. The additional 10 feet should not be taken. The history of the original decision was discussed and the EIR. Commissioner Gottlieb felt if this was a matter of the CC&R's, the Commission should not be hearing it. She reviewed the Council meeting when this was discussed. Mr. Cahill stated the Council made an interpretation based on a staff recommendation that there be an additional 10 foot conservation easement in addition to the 25 feet that already exists. The 10 feet is an arbitrary number. This number was not arrived at through consultations with Fish and Game or the Regional Quality Water Board, it was only a guess by staff to satisfy the requirement. Mr. Mittelman had a different recollection of the Council meeting then Commissioner Gottlieb. He stated at the last Council meeting when this was called into question by the Council they specifically requested that this be reviewed and a recommendation be made by the Planning Commission as to how they felt about the practical need for the additional 10 feet to be levied upon the owners. Harry Ememan referred to the June 3, 1999 memo from Curtis Williams to the City Council regarding the interpretation of setback requirements for Hale Creek lots 5 through 10. The Commission reviewed the statement. Dot Schreiner, 14301 Saddle Mountain Drive, felt there was not enough information presented to make a informed decision. She has the Hale Creek notes from June 3, 1999 which is pertinent regarding the conditions of the subdivision. This is not an unprecedented request, referring to the Lands of Rogez. The conditions of the subdivision are very clear. The previous documents should be available prior to any decision. There were three options given June 3, 1999, stating the background information is very important. Steve Robertson, 12080 Kate Drive, noted that there is an 80 foot conservation easement taken from his property already. They have had a meeting with the City Attorney who did not have a problem with the reduction of 10 feet. It does not sound like much but makes a difference when building. CLOSED PUBLIC HEARING Chairman Cottrell did not feel they had enough information to make a decision. He would like the City Attorney to advise them if this will effect the EIR. Mr. Cahill had met with the City Attorney. This is only a recommendation to the City Council. He referred to the letter from Fish and Game noting the recommendation, not a requirement. What they are doing is bringing this project into compliance with Town ordinances which states "25 feet." Either a 35 foot or 25 foot buffer was discussed. The additional 10 feet is not a condition of the subdivision. Commissioner Gottlieb would prefer a letter from the City Attorney stating her arguments that will allow them to recommend a reduction of the additional 10 foot conservation easement. Chairman Cottrell felt they could make a decision conditioned on approval of the City Attorney, making sure they are still in compliance with the EBR. Commissioner Clow noted the importance of the requirements for setbacks relating to Water Quality Board and Fish and Game. However, he did Planning Commission Minutes Approved 8/9/00 July 26, 2000 Page 5 not feel any of the water from lots 5 through 10 would empty into Hale Creek. There should be no impact on neighbors down stream. Every time someone builds a house they are making compromises about how to create a house that has the best impact on their neighbors and community. Allowing the applicants the 10 feet will enable them more variety and ability to better fit into the community. There are strong practical reasons to allow the deletion of the additional 10 feet. Commissioner Vitu agreed. The additional 10 feet of conservation easement is arbitrary. There is already a 25 foot buffer and the drainage is going away from the creek. Commissioner Gottlieb would like a letter from the City Attorney indicating that the EBR is not effected. Without additional information she could not support the application. Chairman Cottrell also felt there was not enough information provided to make a decision. He was in agreement with the 25 foot easement. MOTION SECONDED AND PASSED: Motion by Commissioner Vitu and seconded by Commissioner Wong to recommend to the City Council direct staff to no longer require the dedication of an additional 10 foot conservation easement along Hale Creek, at the rear of lots 5 through 10, at the time of site development of those lots, subject to Council and legal opinion. AYES: Commissioners Wong, Clow & Vitu NOES: Chairman Cottrell, Commissioner Gottlieb This item will be scheduled for a City Council public hearing agenda. Brief break at 9:00 p.m. 4.3 LANDS OF BIRNBAUM, 27760 Edgerton Road (75 -00 -Permit Modification); A request for a Site Development Pemtit Modification requesting replacement of a condition of approval which required the installation of a IIB path adjacent to Edgerton Road with a condition requiring the applicant to pay the pathway in -lieu fee. Staff introduced this item by noting that the original condition requested the pathway be built in the tight -of -way along the property frontage. Jim Rasp felt there was sufficient right-of-way to construct a path in this location. Commissioner Clow had spoken to the applicant and asked if the construction could be on the other side of the road. Mr. Rasp indicated that this would require some cut into the adjacent slope with the construction of an expensive retaining wall. Mr. Cahill noted this situation is different from the first pathway request as this pathway is identified on the Master Pathway Plan on this side. Basically what the applicant is asking is to not construct the pathway but pay the fee so the Town would construct it in the future. In this case, they should be assessed the $66.00 per lineal foot subject to approval by the City Council (new increase in fee schedule). Safwat Malek, 101 First Street, Los Altos, applicant's representative and architect, stated the issue was the safety and practically of the pathway on this section of the road given that there is E no pathway on top or bottom. This would be the only pathway constructed at this time. Because `r of the mature trees and the slope of terrain beyond the trees, the previous Commissioners had discussed various possibilities. At the last Commission meeting, Commissioner Gottlieb Planning Commission Minutes Approved 8/9/00 July 26, 2000 Page 6 suggested a compromise. When taking a look at how it could be accomplished, they found it to be difficult to implement. He felt the safety of people driving on this road is still an issue. It was also agreed that horses would not be coming down on that road due to the steepness. Given that this would be the only portion of the road with a pathway it appears to be impractical and questionable at best. This is why they are here again. They should base any fees according to what is currently taking place, not a future fee schedule. He requested that they pay the in -lieu fee and avoid the need for constructing the pathway. He stated Mr. Peterson, City Engineer, had visited the site and felt it was not safe to construct a pathway. Commissioner Clow had listened to the tape of the previous meeting and there seemed to be an agreement reached. How did it all fall apart? Mr. Malek stated that the agreement was to construct a narrower pathway, save the trees and work in-between the block part of the pavement so they would have a 4 foot width pathway. He felt it was practically impossible to install on this road. Mr. Peterson always felt it would impact the safety of traffic by narrowing the road. Commissioner Wong asked if he had any other suggestions for the pathway? Mr. Malek responded no. The existing pavement width is 18 feet, and fairly irregular. Les Ernest, Pathways Committee, stated that the Committee thought long and hard about this request. It is an important pathway which links Edgerton Road to Three Forks Lane and Page Mill Road. There is a safety issue as there needs to be a way for pedestrians and equestrians to get out of the way when vehicles come down the road. At the time the Committee made the recommendation, it was accepted by the Commission and applicants. Now they want to be released from this condition. When this was discussed at the April 26, 2000 meeting, a compromise was worked out so they would use part of the road ways and part of the off-road to get enough room for the pathway. It would not be wise to accept second hand information (statement from Mr. Peterson) without an opportunity to hear from the source. He felt it was still possible to build a path. It is a tight situation due to the trees planted in the road right-of-way. He suggested when those trees die, they should not be replaced. This is a popular route for hikers and equestrians. CLOSED PUBLIC HEARING Commissioner Wong noted that the path is on the Master Plan and it could be used to connect to other paths. Commissioner Vita was concerned with the safety of installing the path. Unfortunately, Mr. Peterson is not present to speak on this project. Mr. Cahill noted the correspondence provided from the Associate Engineer in the staff report. It was clear there are some constraints to building a pathway but it is not impossible and could be done. Commissioner Vitu agreed with Mr. Rasp that it would be difficult to build the path on the other side of the road due the need for retaining walls and technical difficulties and she would not want to see any mature trees removed which provide good screening. She felt the pathway should be constructed in the roadway. There would be an issue as to how wide it would be and how much pavement would need to be taken from Edgerton Road. Commissioner Gottlieb had originally proposed the compromise and supports the pathway committee recommendation. Commissioner Clow felt it was important not to cut down trees and not use retaining walls. He could support the pathway by roughening pavement without removing any trees assuming safety issues are addressed. Chairman Cottrell concurred. This pathway is on the Master Pathway Plan and the Planning Commission Minutes Approved 8/9/00 July 26, 2000 Page 7 applicants had agreed with the request. He felt at the last meeting there were possible compromises and felt there was no reason why they could not install a pathway, without removing trees, perhaps 3 feet in some areas and 4 feet in others using part of the pavement to make up the difference and still have a much safer situation than currently exists. He would support the pathway requesting the applicant work with the public works staff. MOTION SECONDED AND PASSED: Motion by Commissioner Gottlieb and seconded by Commissioner Wong to deny the applicant's request and accept the Pathway Committee's recommendation regarding construction of a type IIB pathway adjacent to Edgerton Road, Lands of Birnbaum, 27760 Edgerton Road, instructing the applicants to work with the Public Works staff, 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. AYES: Chairman Cottrell, Commissioners Clow, Vita, Gottlieb & Wong NOES: None This is subject to a 22 day appeal period. OLD BUSINESS 5.1 Report from subcommittees. Commissioner Gottlieb reported on the Pathway Committee noting they will be scheduling short walks around Town once a month. She discussed the in-lieu/impact fees. She felt the City Council should make a ruling before having any more applicants requesting relief from a pathway requirement. 6. NEW BUSINESS 6.1 Proposed action plan to revise 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. Chairman Cottrell noted that the City Council directed the Planning Commission to revisit the proposed constrained lot ordinance. They indicated that they would like the Commission to hold a public hearing on the matter with Town -wide noticing. The Commission would receive comments from the public at the first hearing and then subsequently draft an ordinance. The Commission should consider scheduling the public hearing for September 1P in order to allow adequate time for Town -wide noticing. Mr. Cahill suggested taking a meeting off, possibly the last meeting in August or the first meeting in September, in case anyone has vacation plans. Commissioner Vita noted she would not be available for the September meetings. Chairman Cottrell continued by stating there has been input regarding simplifying the process/calculations. Discussion ensued regarding the slope density formula, initial survey, and potential chaos if the formula is changed. It was agreed to post the public hearing for August 23, 2000 taking input prior to recommending any changes to the ordinance. Planning Commission Minutes July 26, 2000 Page 8 Approved 8/9/00 6.2 Proposed action plan for revising draft Community Survey regarding the Land Use Element of the General Plan. Chairman Cottrell noted that the City Council directed the Commission to redraft the Community Survey. He was a part of the Land Use Committee of 13 citizens working on this survey. He was unclear as to what the Council expects. Commissioner Gottlieb agreed. She felt the committee did a very good job on the survey. The consultants were also very good. Chairman Cottrell reviewed the June 15'b Council's comments regarding the survey. Evan Wythe, 13828 Moon Lane, commented on the concerns of Council regarding two purposes that a survey might complete: (1) fulfill the needs of the Land Use Element; and (2) to further clarify what the public wanted regarding Town ordinances. It was felt that the form of the questions would not give them specific information from which an ordinance could be created. Dot Schreiner, 14301 Saddle Mountain Drive, also commented on the Land Use Committee meetings. She felt the consultants guided the meeting very well. The consultants indicated that the survey would give them a broad vision as to how people want the Town to go. They are experts in analyzing the figures. She did not feel the survey would get any better by starting with a new committee. Discussion ensued. Chairman Cottrell suggested he return the survey to the City Council for direction and guidance. 6.3 Scheduling Planning Commission Workshop with City Attorney and Acting Planning Director. The Commission agreed to schedule a workshop for August 9, 2000 at 6:00 p.m. in Council Chambers. REPORT FROM THE CITY COUNCIL MEETING 7.1 Planning Commission Representative for July 20'h, Commissioner Cottrell, reported on the following: interviews and appointments to the recreation and parks committee; Lands of Nijenhuis and Broering appealed; request for relocation of a conservation easement, Lands of Wythe and Vita, lot 3, Moon Lane; discussion of term limits and four year terms for committee volunteers; discussion of path in lieu fees; designation of voting delegate for the League Annual Conference; Lands of Giakoumis; Mayor's goals and objectives; reorganization of Planning Commission; consideration of nuisance abatement (rooster); Lands of Askarinam; and annexation (Amigos Court and Summerhill Avenue). 7.2 Planning Commission Representative for August 3rd — meeting cancelled Planning Commission Minutes Approved 8/9/00 July 26, 2000 Page 9 8. APPROVAL OF MINUTES 8.1 Approval of July 12, 2000 minutes PASSED BY CONSENSUS: To approve the July 12, 2000 minutes. 9. REPORT FROM FAST TRACK MEETING -JULY 25, 2000 9.1 LANDS OF ROGEZ, 25627 Fremont Road (109-00-ZP-SD-GD); A request for a Site Development Permit for a new residence, cabana, tennis court, pool and spa. Approved with conditions. 9.2 LANDS OF HOFF, 26541 Taaffe Road (258-99-ZP-SD-GD); A request for a Site Development Permit for a new residence, guest house, and pool. Approved with conditions. 10. REPORT FROM SITE DEVELOPMENT MEETING -JULY 25, 2000 10.1 LANDS OF LOGAN, 14250 Berry Hill Lane (165-00-ZP-SD); A request for a Site Development Permit for landscape screening plan. Approved with conditions. 11. ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned by consensus at 9:55 p.m. Resp ectfully submitted, _ Lam Smith Planning Secretary