My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
06/15/2000
LOSALTOSHILLS
>
City Clerk
>
City Council Minutes
>
2000
>
06/15/2000
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
2/27/2015 11:33:45 AM
Creation date
2/27/2015 11:11:55 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Minutes
Date
2000-06-15
Description
Regular Meeting Minutes
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
14
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
View images
View plain text
• MOTION SECONDED AND CARRIED: Moved by Cheng, seconded by Johnson and <br /> passed unanimously to adopt Resolution #43-00 adopting the Town budget for fiscal year <br /> 2000-01 and the appropriations limit for the fiscal year ending June 30, 2001 and <br /> Resolution#44-00 amending the Town's compensation schedule for Fiscal Year 2000-01 <br /> 11.2 Introduction of proposed ordinance of the Town of Los Altos Hills amending <br /> Sections 10-1.501(b), 10-1.502(c) and 10-1.503(c) of the Zoning Code with <br /> regard to development area, calculations for fire department turnarounds and <br /> driveway width, and with regard to allowable development area and floor area <br /> on constrained lots (FIRST READING) <br /> Jim Abraham, 12831 Viscaino Road, recommended not changing Section 10-1.5030. He <br /> believed regulations were onerous enough without reducing the allowed amount of floor <br /> area. He did not agree with the proposed reduction from 4,000 to 3,500 square feet. He <br /> also believed relaxing the rules on slope lots as he believed these regulations were the <br /> basis for a lot of the confusion and problems. <br /> Al Whaley, 26925 Taaffe, did not support this proposed ordinance. Ordinances should <br /> come from a set of principles and first values and he did not believe this ordinance did. <br /> This appeared to be subjective. He believed that Council had to accept that ratios may be <br /> off of house to land on smaller lots just so people could have space to live. More <br /> homework needed to be done on this ordinance. Drainage, aesthetics and views need to be <br /> • worked into an understandable set of principles which were more mathematical and based <br /> on principles rather than subjectivity. <br /> Dot Schreiner, Planning Commissioner, presented an historical background. First, she <br /> corrected the Planning Commission vote as stated in the staff report. The vote was <br /> unanimous, not four to one that the ordinance be passed. She supported 6,000 square foot <br /> floor area and 15,000 square foot development area be included for a one acre lots as <br /> endorsed by the Town because this was the concept that the Town started from and set the <br /> tone for any changes to constrained lots. Presently 4,000 maximum floor area (MFA) and <br /> 5,000 maximum development area(MDA) were allowed on constrained lots at .50 luf and <br /> over. These were artificial numbers and had no reference to the slope ordinance that the <br /> rest of the Town had to follow. 4,000 MFA in most cases was 25% higher than what was <br /> allowed for flat lots of one acre. The most a flat lot was allowed was 6,000 square feet. A <br /> .50 luf would result in a figure of 3,000 and we are allowing 4,000. Conversely, the MDA <br /> allowed was 5,000 which was too small. It was impossible to have a 4,000 square foot <br /> house with a driveway a turnaround, etc. unless you reduced the floor area and no one <br /> wanted to do this. Therefore variances have been requested. The proposed ordinance <br /> followed the same principles of the slope density ordinance and if the garage was included <br /> as part of the floor area,part of the problem would be solved. <br /> Scott Tilley, 26217 Dori Lane, did not think the Section 10-1.5030 should be changed. <br /> The restrictions were already onerous enough. He also did not think this would decrease <br /> June 15, 2000 <br /> Regular City Council Meeting <br /> 12 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.