Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout11/08/2000Minutes of a Regular Meeting Approved 12/13/00 40 Town of Los Altos Hills PLANNING COMMISSION Wednesday, November 8, 2000, 6:00 p.m. Council Chambers, 26379 Fremont Road cc: Cassettes (2) #20-00 ROLL CALL AND PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE The Planning Commission meeting was called to order at 6:00 p.m. in the Council Chambers at Town Hall. Present: Commissioners Vitu, Gottlieb & Wong Absent: Chairman Cottrell & Commissioner Clow Staff: Cut Cahill, Planning Director; Angelica Herrera, Assistant Planner; Lani Smith, Planning Secretary ( 3. PUBLIC HEARINGS 3.1 LANDS OF MONTGOMERY, 27755 Central Drive (218-00-ZP); A request for a Zoning Permit for a 6 foot solid wood fence, and a minor variance to exceed the maximum fence height of 3 feet. The Planning Director introduced this item by noting a correction to the conditions of approval, adding that the applicant shall defend, indemnify, and hold the Town from any claim or lawsuit involving the Variance, Site Development Permit or Encroachment Permit. He provided clarification regarding the variance request stating a six foot fence with less than 50% open area, such as the one that the applicant is proposing, is generally required to be 60 feet from the centerline of the roadway. However, if the applicant were to locate the proposed fence 60 feet from the centerline of Central Drive, the fence would be located down the steep slope immediately adjacent to Central Drive. The fence would be located below the adjoining road grade, providing no privacy benefit and would be difficult to construct on the steep slope. The variance request will allow the construction of the fence at the top of the slope adjacent to Central Drive and within the reference line for Central Drive. Based on the opposition to the fence expressed to staff by neighbors/residents, the project is being heard at the Planning Commission level. An encroachment permit will also be required as a condition of approval since the fence will actually need to be located within the Central Drive right-of-way. Discussion ensued regarding the fence poles, allowing a fence in the road right-of-way, and the possible weakening of the bank with the fence poles. OPENED PUBLIC HEARING Planning Commission Minutes Approved 12/13/00 November 8, 2000 Page 2 Dubose Montgomery, 27464 Altamont Drive, applicant, discussed the "good neighbor" fence (looks the same on both sides) and the support of 28 neighbors. A six foot solid wood fence is permitted under the zoning ordinances. However, because of unique topography, without this variance this property would be deprived of the privileges of privacy enjoyed by other properties in Town with identical zoning. Placing the fence in a location not requiring a variance (one with a longer setback) would be further down the steep hillside below Central Drive would seriously reduce the privacy and security advantages of a fence. He is asking for the fence for security and privacy reasons as there has been some vandalism and some illegal driving on the property. He has two daughters who like to play in the backyard and on several occasions a man has stood up on Central Drive peering down on them as they played. He felt an open chain link fence would not provide enough privacy and a hedge would not be environmentally friendly due to the amount of water it would require. No trees will be removed with the proposed fence location. The fence location will not impact any traffic or cars and will provide a measure of safety from the steep slope (safety barrier). He did not feel the height and/or location of the fence would block any views. He also noted extensive legal research has been done on his behalf regarding all rights to this property. Based on this research, he believes no one else has any private rights to this land which would preclude this fence. Any claims to the contrary are bogus and are simply another form of harassment tactics to forestall gaining some privacy for his family. The Town has no obligation to try to verify any claimed private rights in this property, if any. He has asked his attorney to be present to answer any questions. He concluded by asking for approval of this minor fence height variance. The granting of this variance will not be detrimental or injurious to anything or anyone. It will provide a level of privacy and piece of mind that is enjoyed by other property owners in Town, which is the intent and purpose of the fence ordinance. John Melcalfe, 12933 Tripoli Court, questioned the use of the pathway and felt putting up a six foot fence invites people to peek. He felt the fence would create an unnatural gully. He quoted from the "Scenic Element (preserve vegetation). He felt the fence would remove the beautiful view of the valley. Eric Clow, 27660 Red Rock Road, noted that the vegetation which had been previously removed from this property was poison oak. He is the closet neighbor to the fence and voiced support. Jim Patmore, 27650 Central Drive, stated he was sympathetic with the applicant's desire, however, did not support the project. Betsy Bertram, 11854 Page Mill Road, has used portions of Central Drive for 25 years. She did not feel there was a need for a fence. Sid Hubbard, 25228 La Loma Drive, asked that everyone is treated equally. Everyone should follow the same ordinances. He encourages low profile fences. Many properties have slopes. If this is approved it would set a precedent. They should follow the ordinances. He felt the six foot fence would create an ally way and it should not be built in the road right-of-way. It is easier for 410 everyone if the rules are followed. Planning Commission Minutes Approved 12/13100 November 8, 2000 Page 3 Bill Riser, 27640 Red Rock Road, 30 year resident, voiced concerns regarding the proposed fence construction, as staked, as it encroaches upon the easement known as Central Drive. This is a private easement, benefiting his land and other abutting property owners, each having a right to this easement. The construction would encroach on the private easement. He felt the Town may have a right to a nonexclusive use of the easement. The Town is not the sole owner of Central Drive easement and cannot therefore act exclusively in legally authorizing an encroachment thereupon. He provided further details regarding the existence, location and use of the easement known as Central Drive, He had referred four recorded documents to the Town attorney, found at the Santa Clara County Recorders Office. Central Drive roadway lies several feet within the 40 -foot Central Drive easement that runs along the southerly boundary of 27555 Central Drive. The proposed six-foot wood plank fence abutting the roadway lies, as shown by the stakes, within the 40 -foot easement. He further discussed the variance findings, stating a rebuttal for all four. He concluded by stating should a variance be granted, it would stand as a monumental precedent to loose, subjective interpretation of the Town's ordinances. It would also be in stark contradiction to the fence requirements as stipulated in a letter dated April 10, 2000, by the previous Planning Director. Sandy Humphries, Environmental Design Committee, stated if the main purpose for the fence is for safety, a six foot fence is useless. There are other ways of protection such as many types of plantings which can grow to 20 feet without the use of a six foot fence. Art Lachenbruch, 11820 Buena Vista Drive, felt an approval of a six foot solid fence within the Central Drive right-of-way would be inconsistent with the findings required by law for a variance and that it could establish a legal precedent for solid six foot "good neighbor' fences on road shoulders throughout our hillside community. He further discussed the variance process and the special characteristic of the applicant's property which apply to many properties. The present configuration of the Town was based on the belief that privacy and natural beauty could coexist with the help of preserving natural vegetation and habitats, using conservation easements where appropriate and when additional screening is necessary, to achieve it with appropriate landscaping. Much of Central Drive is screened by natural clusters of oaks, bay, buckeyes, toyons and, yes, poison oak. He felt screening could be achieved by augmenting the natural growth with landscaping, even local hedge -like plantings, with appropriate materials. This would preserve a roadside where startled small mammals could find cover (significant wildlife corridor). Scott Vanderlip, 13851 Fremont Pines Lane, felt this was a beautiful area which he and his daughter use. He would like the Town to get away from the big fence look. He noted that just below this property is a good example of vegetation growing without water (naturally). Tony Alverez, 27625 Red Rock Road, voiced opposition to the project by discussing the following issues: driver safety; water run-off; road maintenance; and neighborhood aesthetics. He recommended maintaining Town ordinances for fences along roadways. The fence at the Killian property along Central Drive is a good example of a fence that would alleviate the problems mentioned in his letter dated November 8, 2000 Planning Commission Minutes Approved 12/13/00 November 8, 2000 Page 4 4 Patty Ceesla, 11990 Page Mill Road, walks Central Drive everyday. There is a beautiful view from Central Drive. A six foot fence will block this view. She suggested a review of the pathway to Westwind Barn also as it is unsafe with 35% to 40% grades. Trails should meander. Drainage should also be reviewed. She felt there were issues of concern regarding the environment and with wildlife. This privacy issue was of the applicant's own making since he removed the vegetation which provided him a privacy buffer. Guy Jinkerson, 12579 Corbetta Lane, has walked the area every morning for three years. He provided a history of the area along with four exhibits indicating the grading out of lush vegetation without permits, a letter from the Montgomery's dated February 26, 2000, a letter dated June 2, 1999 from Curtis Williams to Robin Kennedy, the applicant's attorney, and a letter dated June 11, 1999 from Robin Kennedy to Curtis Williams. It is important to know whether there is an easement. He also felt the trail was too steep and not safe. If a fence goes up, the easement will be abandoned. He also mentioned the filling of over 200 feet of creek with the Department of Fish and Game involved regarding corrections to the creek (vital for water movement). He was of the opinion that the former Planning Director supported the review of only an open type fence. Regarding the letters of support, he felt only four of the 28 resident supporters are really adjacent to the property in question. Regarding privacy, he was all for safety but the Town is blessed with a low crime rate. Approving a six foot fence would set an undesirable precedent. This is a precious area. The corridor created by the fence will destroy the beauty in Town and he felt there was not sufficient grounds to support this variance. Robin Kennedy, 545 Middlefield Road, Menlo Park, applicant's attorney, discussed the original sub -divider of this subdivision in the early part of the last century. When that sub -divider granted interest in the land they preserved a 40 foot wide easement for ingress/egress along what is now called Central Drive. The center line of that 40 feet is very close to the steep end on the opposite side of Central Drive from the Montgomery property. The three property owners on the other side are subject to 20 feet of that easement. So there is another 20 feet available although it is on a steep slope and more expensive to build on, requiring more engineering. The Montgomery property actually has born the burden of the entire right-of-way on its 20 foot side. As the center line goes down toward the Patmore property, it actually moves so that a portion of Central Drive encroaches onto the Montgomery property well over the 20 feet that comprises the easement. At that end of the property, Montgomery's have been giving up more than required to by the easement in order not to require the roadway to go up on the upper slope. She continued by noting that Central Drive is a private street. People who live on the road are responsible for maintaining it, not the Town. The Town has never accepted a dedication of this road. The public does not have a right to go past the Montgomery property on Central Drive other than to the extent that the Patmore's allow them. The public right-of-way ends at the property boundary between the Montgomery and Patmore property. She continued stating there is no trail/pathway easement on the Montgomery property (public records/preliminary title report). Curtis Williams requested of the Montgomery's to grant an easement but due to the amount of trespassing on their property and the enormous investment they were making in a biologically sensitive and appropriate replanting of the property, they declined to offer the trail easement. She further discussed the removal of the vegetation (for the purpose of a survey) and the expense to restore �w the area due to errors made by the gardener. She stated there was no conservation easement or trail easement on this property. She concluded by stating that the Montgomery property is Planning Commission Minutes Approved 12/13/00 November 8, 2000 Page 5 4 private property and different from other properties in Town in that it is immediately adjacent to a piece of road way that is used by walkers, bikers, hikers, etc. Many of these people come right down onto their property. Due to vandalism and trespassing, this property is unique and the variance should be granted. John Melcalfe, 12933 Tripoli Court, did not believe a gardener could clear this property to the extent is was cleared. CLOSED PUBLIC HEARING The Planning Director referred to the May 25, 2000 letter from Curtis Williams regarding the option for applying for a variance to allow the six foot high fence to be constructed at the edge of the Central Drive right-of-way. The variance would allow the fence to be located closer than 30 feet from the centerline of Central Drive, and would allow the height to be six feet at that point, rather than 4'h feet, as required by the Code. Commissioner Gottlieb discussed conservation easements on areas over a 30% slope. She felt the fence is not in the proper location and she was concerned with the under cutting of the road, if constructed. Central Drive is a very narrow road (dangerous). A fence located 10 feet down the slope with the right type of vegetation would be better and would screen the Montgomery property. Usually a six foot fence is not constructed on a vacant lot. The issue is that the fence is within the road right-of-way, over three feet in height and it is proposed to be a solid fence (should be open). She cannot make the variance findings. Commissioner Vitu felt this was a difficult case due to the level of vandalizing and trespassing which has occurred on this site. They need to look at what they can do to help the applicant enjoy private and tranquil use of the property. Although she is not eager to grant a variance and she agreed with the speakers who say a variance should not be granted. She did not feel this would set a precedent due to the previous problems incurred on his property. She was concerned with the fence encroaching in the road right-of-way. If it were the consensus of the Commission to grant a fence, she would agree it would not be desirable to have the fence along the road side without some landscape mitigation to break up the look. Commissioner Wong agreed with Commissioners Gottlieb and Vito in that it will be a very controversial fence if granted a variance for a solid fence in the road right-of- way. A see-through chain link fence with a definite system of landscaping would be something he could support. Commissioner Gottlieb understood many people have experienced vandalism but she did not feel a variance could be granted on the grounds of vandalism. She felt privacy could be achieved by landscaping. Commissioner Wong suggested moving the fence back two feet to get it out of the road right-of-way although it would be in the slope area. Commissioner Gottlieb felt there was an issue placing a fence on the bank. MOTION FAILED FOR LACK OF SECOND: Motion by Commissioner Gottlieb to deny the request for a Zoning Permit for a six foot solid wood fence, and a minor variance to exceed the maximum fence height of 3 feet, Lands of Montgomery, 27755 Central Drive, due to lack of appropriate variance findings (#2). Planning Commission Minutes Approved 12/13/00 November 8, 2000 Page 6 Discussion ensued regarding height and location of the fence. The applicant was invited to help with a solution. Mr. Montgomery stated he preferred not to hold this over to another meeting. He suggested a six foot open fence (chain link) along the edge of the 40 easement which would take the fence two feet off the edge of the road way. MOTION SECONDED AND PASSED: Motion by Commissioner Vito and seconded by Commissioner Wong to approve the Zoning Permit for a 6 foot solid wood fence, and a minor variance to exceed the maximum fence height of 3 feet, Lands of Montgomery, 27755 Central Drive, with the following additions/changes: the six foot fence shall be an open style such as chain-link and shall not be located within the public right-of-way on Central Drive. Prior to installation, the applicant shall submit a revised site plan, stamped and signed by a licensed civil engineer, showing the public right-of-way location and the proposed location of the fence subject to Planning and Fire Department review and approval. Conditions 6 and 7 no longer apply. AYES: Commissioners Wong & Vitu NOES: Commissioner Gottlieb ABSENT: Chairman Cottrell and Commissioner Clow Both Commissioner Gottlieb and Guy Jinkerson commented on the legal requirement for three affirmative votes for approval when there are only three Commissioners voting. Mr. Jinkerson would provide staff with the Chapter and Section number for their information. This approval is subject to a 22 day appeal period. 4. OLD BUSINESS 4.1 Report from subcommittees. Commissioner Gottlieb indicated there would be advertised monthly pathway walks. 6.1 Planning Commission Representative for November 2"d — cancelled 6.2 Planning Commission Representative for November 16' -cancelled 6.3 Planning Commission Representative for December 7' — Commissioner Clow 6.4 Planning Commission Representative for December 21" — cancelled 7. APPROVAL OF MINUTES 7.1 Approval of October 25, 2000 minutes l PASSED BY CONSENSUS: To approve the October 25, 2000 minutes. Planning Commission Minutes November 8, 2000 Page 7 Approved 12/13/00 8. REPORT FROM THE FAST TRACK MEETING — OCTOBER 31 & NOVEMBER 7 2000 8.1 LANDS OF STEWART, 27390 Altamont Road (40-00-ZP-SD-GD); A request for a Site Development Permit for a new residence and study. Approved with conditions. 8.2 LANDS OF QUAIL MEADOWS, 12060 Kate Drive (lot 4) (187-00-ZP-SD-GD); A request for a Site Development Permit for a new residence. Approved with conditions. 8.3 LANDS OF KALBACH, 13221 W. Sunset Drive (99-00-ZP-SD); A request for a Site Development Permit for a new residence, accessory structure, and pool. Approved with conditions. 9. REPORT FROM SITE DEVELOPMENT MEETING -NOVEMBER 7. 2000 9.1 LANDS OF YEH, 24055 Jabil Lane (194-00-ZP-SD); A request for a Site Development Permit for a landscape screening. Approved with conditions. 10. ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned by consensus at 8:35 p.m. ctfully submitted, mith Planning Secretary 4W