Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout7.1J lem 7.1 Minutes of a Regular Meeting Town of Los Altos Hills PLANNING COMMISSION WEDNESDAY, August 22, 2012, 7:00 p.m. Council Chambers, 26379 Fremont Road 1. ROLL CALL AND PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE The regular meeting of the Planning Commission was called to order at 7:00 p.m. in the Council Chambers at Town Hall. Present: Chairman Partridge and Commissioners: Couperus, Abraham, Mandle, Harpoothan. Absent: None Staff 2. PRESENTATIONS FROM THE FLOOR — Debbie Pedro, Planning Director welcomed and introduced Jamie McAvoy, Administrative Assistant. City Clerk Deborah Pedovan was also in attendance to assist with this meeting. 3. PUBLIC HEARINGS - Planning Commission Ex Parte Contacts Policy Disclosure: 3.1 STUDY SESSION on the FENCE ORDINANCE - Proposed amendments to Title 10, Chapter 1, Article 5, Fences, Walls, and Columns of the Los Altos Hills Municipal Code. The amendments include language clarifications and required setbacks for fences, other than four foot tall rail fences, on properties over two (2) acres in size (staff -Brian Froelich). Chairman Partridge: The spokesman for the Ad -Hoc committee will make a brief presentation and then the staff presentation after that. Roger Spreen, Open Space Committee Chair and member of the Ad -Hoc committee on fencing: Thought it might be helpful to do a quick run-through or an abridged version of the same presentation made to the council in June. We thought it might be helpful to show you where this came from and what the process was. This is the same presentation that the Ad -Hoc committee prepared for the Council back in June. The background: the project actually began in April over a year ago. Many people had raised comments on a variety of issues that all came back to the issue of fencing, including property that had been squared off, property line disputes, wildlife being cut off, etc. The atmosphere is no longer a rural atmosphere. The members of the ad hoc committee are listed on the presentation board — council members, former and current planning commissioners, etc.. The task of the ad hoc committee was to determine a four -stage process: if there is a problem, is it a problem that people recognize the problem, what are common solutions to a problem (in surrounding towns), and finally, are there things that need to be done. (view slide) We began by evaluating the actual problem. What are the town's values on openness, fencing, gridding, open space aesthetics vs. urban fencing, walls, solid views? In going back to the green sheets, original documentations, and general plans of Los Altos Hills, we discovered that the fencing effects that we're seeing do seem to be slightly contrary to what the town was originally to be about. The second phase was determining if this was true? What are the issues we see that lead to these various complaints? This is a topic that carries a lot of emotion to it in many ways. What are the towns" values? Third phase, we looked at what the surrounding towns do. What type of ordinance rules do they use to combat this issue? We also did a survey as a channel to get some feedback. The results of these have been well publicized, and the results we looked at are as follows: 1. Should we continue with this? Do people still feel that these values are current? Is the real environment important to you? Is the sense of the founding documents still relevant? There was a relevant response of yes, these things are still important to us. 2. Should we proceed anyway? There are two other avenues of prevention that we are discussing. Other ordinances of towns around us: A. a set back of solid walls off the property line or B. only restricting fencing to specific percentage of the lot. These came back with reasonable support for us to use one of these, specifically the set -back idea. The aesthetics of solid wall fencing should be addressed; action should be taken; and we should propose action. Emergency Wildlife — problems include cutting off existing pathways for existing wildlife. Emergency The other concern was with there was on other path in them other than the road in. The fact that you can't get in for emergency access needs to be changed. A proposal of this source (set -back rules) seems to be a good way to approach this. We already have set -back fencing in the front, this would just add side and back yards. We include a limitation of partial size. Very long runs of fencing seem to cause the most issues — on the larger parcels. (view slide) Let's work with the set -backs on the side and back yard. The area around the edge to provide access through. Commissioner Partridge: Open the floor for questions ...... none. Thank you, Roger. Brian Froelich: follow up to acknowledge the past 16 months of mtgs, hours, and individuals involved: Council Members: Gary Walduch, John Radford, Former Planning Commmissioner: Eric Clough, Pathway Cmt Member: Denise Williams, Open Space Members: Nancy Caperas, Roger Spreen, and Original Cmt Members: Carl Capell, and Pat Leigh. In part of the survey, one of the questions (number 6) dealt with neighborhood notification, in which 73% showed interest. This is a pretty easy fix as no change is needed to the ordinance because it has already been implemented - a neighborhood courtesy notice that has been in effect for the last 3-4 months. A one-page letter was also distributed to property owners alerting them that a fence has been proposed within 10 ft of their property line. These steps were received positively. Recommendation: the ordinance be changed and the two aspects that need to be changed: Clarification and language updating & changes to the standards. The process currently is as follows: property owners submit an application to the planning dept, and it is reviewed at staff level, so no hearing is required. On interior property lines, there is no set -back with fences up to 6 feet tall, and they can be open or solid up until the property line. There is a graduated set -back along front entrances and roadways — a graduated set -back, where open fences can be taller closer to the property line. Standards changes: (forwarded from the Ad -Hoc committee) We are looking at two different groups — medium and large properties. Medium size properties of 2- 3 acres, looking at a set -back fences other than rail fences. (see diagram) On the current property lines (within the yellow markings), only 4ft tall rail fences would be allowed, 10 ft to the interior, with no regulation for a solid or open fence. Larger properties would have the same concept, but the set -back would be increased to 20 ft. and the same area for rail fences would remain the same. The two types of rail fences that would be compliant would be split rail and ranch fencing. We picked a random neighborhood. Please notice the red dash lines indicating where the fencing would now be allowed. If the changes were implemented, the 2 acre properties would have a 10 foot buffer around. This is how it would play out in a neighborhood on Alaina Rd. What's been done to prepare for this meeting? A town -wide postcard has been sent, followed by a second letter sent to homeowners with properties larger than 2 acres, and finally postings were placed in three places around town for this hearing. Tonight, no formal action is requested, so the commission will need to hear public comment and make recommendation to staff and the committee. The item will be scheduled at a future date for a formal public hearing, recommendation to the council, council's procedure to have a lst reading, 2nd reading, and then 30 days before any ordinance change becomes law. This is my summary of the staff report. Any questions? Question 1: Yes, could you please address the credibility of the survey? Was it a scientific survey? Done by professionals? My sense is that it was none of those. A (Brian): It was a survey that did not cost any money. It was done through the town's survey program that residents can sign up for on the town's website. Question (cont): It's actually done through Survey Monkey, correct. That's hardly a scientific way ato run a survey and I don't think it was very represented in the town. I find it hard to put much stock in the survey. Did you do any analysis of the impact on 3 acre property lots with a rectangular shape, same for a 10 acre lot, as to how much additional land would wind up behind the fence. A (Brian): The model presented was the only one prepared. No calculations for a specific lot. Question 2: I heard in the presentation a legal requirement to accommodate wildlife that the state requires it of the town. Can someone quote that? A (Brian): The town conservation element has policies that discuss consideration of wildlife in the town planning and development process. Question 2 (cont): Is there a state requirement? A (Brian): State law, we are required to have the conservation element. Question 3: I was wondering about the neighbor notification. Is that a neighbor that shares a fence? A (Brian): Within l Oft of the property line is our rule. Commissioner Partridge: Next step will be opening the hearing to the general audience. Set a time limit of 3 minutes. Speaker 1: John Radford —13810: Member of the City Council and Ad -Hoc committee: The concern is to address the validity of the survey. The survey was based on 900 residents that wanted to be on continual request to be on surveys from the town. Correct, it is not a scientific survey, but a scientific survey would have pulled the town in different ways to come up with different scientific answers. In this case, we were simply looking for directional feedback. Scientific — no/ Valid — yes. Question: Was there a place for people to include comments on the survey? Answer (John Radford): Yes, comment boxes were provided, and we have about 400 pages of comments. 65% of residents felt that with lots over 2 acres that there should be some required set -backs, just like other towns (Saratoga, Portola). 65% percent is a pretty dominant response on one side. Speaker 2: Walt Wilson —11471 Pointe Vista Drive: He purchased his property 14 years ago - a 3 and a half acre lot. After developing, his property went down to a 2 and a half acre lot due to road development and conservation requirements. So here we have another requirement that would limit a quarter acre of use on my property. 1. We have a case or a solution tonight, but what's undefined is what is the problem? There's been nothing to indicate what the impact is with the wildlife. 2. The survey had biased questions. 3. This ordinance includes replacements fences going into the future. Speaker 3: Helen Cunningham — Central Drive: States that her property is 2 acres, and she opposes the proposed amendment on 3 grounds: 1. Unacceptable consequences - the cost of fencing is now doubled; cannot share cost with neighbor - building two fences — one for yourself and one for the neighbor; eminent domain — grant access of our land to the town without any compensation (up 21 %); loss of landscaping; safety and privacy — no way to control human traffic; create ambiguous property boundaries. 2. rational is flawed — problem with the survey — it is not random; 3. other solutions exist — the town take more responsibility for purchasing (end of 3 minutes) Presents pictures of ambiguous boundaries, people moving around in the courtyard, etc.... For example: 2 properties of different sizes — no one will know where the boundaries are anymore; boundary disputes. With the survey — questions 4 and 5 are basically the same but 50% of the people said yes to 4 and 65% said yes to 5. Either there was a calculation error or people did not understand the questions. Speaker 3: Donald McCauley — 23548????: States that the first two elements of the survey indicate that the residents recognize and appreciate the rural atmosphere of this town, and want to preserve it. There is no need for an ordinance to dictate this. Any property owners desiring to put a fence and appreciate their rights of ownership, can resolve any issues with their neighbors and town and effected land -owners. I would propose that this ordinance be retracted in entirety. In it's place, any property owners that wish to fence their property may do so with mutual agreement with the neighboring owner and the town planning commission. Thank you. Speaker 4: Jay Shidler — 27994 *** Way: States that there is evidence that this one - shoe -fits -all formula just does not work. (Walks away from the mic briefly here) 1. It would be pointless to consider putting up a 4ft fence because wildlife could pass right through. 2. The location of the house is a problem. There are 120 trees on this lot, and the house is sitting right at the 30ft set -back. If we were to move this down, we would wipe out about 15-20 more trees. Then we would have a very poor trade off. 3. This ordinance has not addressed this problem of wildlife access. Even with a fence, the deer still have access to this property. Specific situations be looked at, and not a cookie -cutter application. Question by Commissioner Partridge: Say you just bought this property and were going to develop it at this time? How would you feel about the ordinance as it is presented? A (Jay): I would nott like it. It would be very difficult to grow on. This is a highly sloped line. This would just be a penalty. Speaker 5: Eleanor Cofflin - ?????: States that she is opposed to this implementation. In addition to her comments provided in the packets, the following points are addressed: 1. The proposal is based on a flawed questionnaire with limited distribution. Most people enjoy wildlife up to a point, but are not willing to give up 10-25% of our land, with no reimbursement to provide corridors for their use as well as animals of the two -legged kind. 2. Currently owns 5 and a half acres, consisting of 3 separate parcels adjacent to each other. 2+ acres have interior lot lines that are perimetered by 5-6ft fences, which have been in place for 65 years. Most wildlife go through the land regularly and do not need permitered corridors at the expense of the homeowner 3. Quick calculation on the loss of value to the 2+acre parcels, which would be under this proposed ordinance. They loss is calculated at 1 million per acre and 1 million for buildings. Parcel 1 approved subdivision flag lot parcel with a barn but no residence. It is for sale and would face another set -back requirement. Based on the 2.008 acres with a l Oft set -back, there would be a loss of.44 acres, which would result in total acres useable 1.64, resulting in a loss of 21.5% usable land. In money form, that would be $436,000 worth of lost property. Parcel 2: one family residence with multiple out buildings — 2.48 acres , l Oft setback with result of .28 acres lost. Total acreage down to 2.20, 11.5 % usable land, or a loss of $402,500 worth of land. Speaker 6: Carl Catrell — North Fork Lane: Notes that he started on the Ad -Hoc committee, but needed to drop out for scheduling reasons. This proposal ignores the locations of homes on the property. I have 3 acres, the house next to me has 7 acres, and our homes are about 75 ft apart. Yet we cannot agree to have a 6ft fence between us on a property line. That doesn't make sense to me. If I want to have a 6ft fence, I have to give up half my set -back, and same for him. That would then create a 40ft space between us, and no one can use that space except the animals. We've come up with an answer for which there is no question and we should go back and look at home locations and what these set -backs will do to that. Thank you.