The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About7.2 • TOWN OF LOS ALTOS HILLS June 28, 1995 Staff Report to the Planning Commission RE: POLICY REGARDING CIRCULAR(DOUBLE ACCESS) DRIVEWAYS FROM: Curtis Williams,Planning Direct RECOMMENDATION That the Planning Commission: Consider the attached draft policy, discuss, and recommend language for City Council approval. BACKGROUND The City Council and Planning Commission have discussed the issue of circular driveways on several occasions. On April 19th, the Council decided to set further discussion for its June 7th agenda, and to request an opinion from the Planning Commission (minutes attached). The item was not discussed on June 7th, and has not yet been set for another Council agenda. DISCUSSION The Town's Site Development Code currently regulates driveway location and construction standards (Code Section 10-2.1102). While there are no Code restrictions on the use of circular, or double access driveways, among the stated purposes of Section 10-2.1101 are: "... to be unobtrusive from off-site; to limit the removal of trees and environmental damage; ... and to minimize impermeable surfacing ...", as well as providing for adequate sight distance, emergency access, and off-street parking. Page 9 of the Town's Design Guidelines,however,specifically states that: "Double access driveways are discouraged unless safety is a factor." The intent of such a provision is generally to retain an open feel along the roadway and to minimize curb cuts and the number of access points for safety reasons, especially along major roadways where traffic is heavier and speeds are higher. Some Commissioners and Councilmembers feel that double access driveways may be accommodated in many instances without impinging on the open character of the Town, and staff has attempted in the attached policy to suggest a set of conditions under which a double access driveway could be allowed. These conditions focus on preserving the open character of the front and side yard setback areas, while providing for adequate driveway safety: i Planning Commission June 28, 1995 Circular Driveways Page 2 i I 1. A minimum of 100 f-et of distance should separate the driveways from each other and a minimum of 60 feet should separate the driveways from any driveway on an adjacent property. 2. Both driveways shou id be located out of the side yard setbacks and out of the front yard setback, other than as necessary'for the access to cross the front yard setback, i.e., no segment of the driveway parallel to the street may be located in the front yard setback. 3. The double access driveways should not result in significantly increased grading or retaining walls visible from off-site, or additional removal of significant trees, as compared to limiting access to one driveway. 4. Double access driveways should not be permitted onto arterial or collector roadways,except where necessary for safety purposes. In no event should double access driveways be allowed in any;location where the City Engineer determines an unsafe condition would exist. 5. Double access drivew ys should not be permitted to allow separate access to secondary dwellin s, except where necessary'for safety purposes. 6. The Site Development Authority may require additional front yard landscaping or the prohibition of gates on double access driveways in order to better preserve the open character of the roadway. 7. The Site Development Authority may permit double access driveways contrary to the above riteria where necessary for safety purposes. 1 Staff feels that these paramel ers would allow double access, including circular, driveways in many instan es, consistent with the 'intent of the Code and Guidelines to assure safety nd to preserve the open character of the Town's roadways. The format of the e attached p licy is one which the City',Council used recently for policies regarding exterior cplors and regarding development areas for tennis courts and driveways. The intent is to add the written, approved policies as an appendix to the Design Guid lines for ready access by the public and staff. Staff is available to respond to questions from the Commission and the community. Planning Commission June 28, 1995 Circular Driveways Page 3 ATTACHMENTS: 1. Draft Policy Regarding Double Access (Circular) Driveways 2. April 19, 1995 City Council Minutes 3. Sections 10-2.1101-1102 of the Site Development Code 4. Page 9 of the Town's Design Guidelines /pccircdw.rpt Planning Co mission June 28, 1995 Circular Driv-ways Page 4 ATTACHMENT 1 TOWN OF LOS ALTOS HILLS DRAFT Policy Re: Double Acces (Circular) Driveways Code Sections and Desi t euidelines: Section 10-2.1101 of the Site IIevelopment Code indicates that driveway design should be unobtrusive from off-site; limit the removal of trees and environmental damage; an. minimize impervious surfacing,while providing adequate sight distance,em rgency access,and parking. Page 9 of the Design Guidelines indicates that "D uble access driveways are discouraged unless safety is a factor." Intent: The intent of lifiniting doublii access driveways is generally to retain an open feel along the roadway and to m nimize curb cuts and the number of access points for safety reas ns,especially along major roadways where traffic is heavier and speeds are hig er. Double. ccess driveways may be accommodated, however, where provisi ns for safety nd open space are made. Policy: Double access driveways s ould be allowed when the following criteria are met: 1. A minimum of 100 f et of distance should separate the driveways from each otlier and a mi imum of 60 feet of distance should separate the driveways from any riveway on an adjacent property. 2. Both dr4veways sho d be located out.of the side yard setbacks and out of the font yard set ack, other than as necessary for the access to cross the fro t yard setbac , i.e., no segment of the driveway parallel to the street m y be located in the front yard setback. 3. The double access driveways should not result in significantly increased grading or retaining walls visible from off-site, or additional removal of signific nt trees, as compared to limiting access to one driveway. 1 Planning Commission June 28, 1995 Circular Driveways Page 5 4. Double access driveways should not be permitted onto arterial or collector roadways, except where necessary for safety purposes. In no event should double access driveways be allowed in any location where the City Engineer determines an unsafe condition would exist. 5. Double access driveways should not be permitted to allow separate access to secondary dwellings, except where necessary for safety purposes. 6. The Site Development Authority may require additional front yard landscaping or the prohibition of gates on double access driveways in order to better preserve the open character of the roadway. 7. The Site Development Authority may permit double access driveways contrary to the above criteria where necessary for safety purposes. Approved by City Council: PASSED BY CONSENSUS: o se a letter from the Mayor to the o •rs of the propertie at 12109 Foot". ,. 12113 Foothill and 27844 Black ' suntain requesting donation • " e paths. It was further agreed .t reports on future requests would : - •n ouncil Consent Calendars f. :pproval. 7.4 Corn • .nication/ treamlining Proced •sSubcommittee I ' Casey re- •rted that three eetings had b-• held .by11 this subcommitte- e • •rposed of this subco mittee _ discussed and it was dete - ned that additiona information was - :ed. To achieve' this it w. -agreed that input from residents was ne:d-- such as through the new er and input from architects. designers, . ders and .others involve- the planning process.. Staff was workin: . a flow chart of the pro :. In addition it was important to get inp it fr• appli ants who had go• rough the process in the last r ree years. Th- ggestion , as made tha . •rofessional consultant be enga'; : to work o• nother Tow question e to obtain this input. This pr• osal could be •' cussed at budget earin •. STAFF REPORTS 8.1 City an-_-r 8.2 Ci • ttorney : . City Clerk 8.3.1 Report on Cou• Correspondence dated A 11, 1995 9. COUNCIL-INITIATED ITEMS 9.1 Issue of Circular riveways (Councilmember Casey) Casey asked if there was a own policy on circular driveways and commented that she believed mixed message were given to applicants onthis issue. Johnson noted that circular driveways were always allowed if it was ia safety factor but believed they should be allo ed if only fo convenience. Hubbard noted that oftentimes circular driveways required less gra ing than other types of driveways. Dauber referred to the Town's des gn guideline. and noted that circular driveways were discouraged unless it was a afety issue. Siegel stated that the design guidelines were approved by the Council -nd he believ-d if there were going to be any changes, they should be brought back t. Council for -pproval. April 19, 1995 Regular City Council Meeting . 6 - S PASSED BY CONSENSUS: To agendize the-issue of circular driveways for the June 7th Council Meeting and in the meantime to request an opinion from the Planning Commission. • 9.2 Clarification of appeal • - •-ss by a Councilmember (Councilm- per Casey) Casey raised this iss - . d stated that'it was her understand' • : that to appeal a decision two Cot • members needed to make the req - Council noted that while this ha• peen discussed at a joint meeting w' he Planning Commission no • decision •• ange the present policy had been - :nged. It was also noted that this woul. -quire an ordinance change. It wa -cided to continue with the present • p..' y at this time and take no action t. range•the ordinance. 9.3 Appointment of Ke; ' afford to the Solid Waste Subcommittee (Mayor Dauber) PASSED BY CO SUS: To appoint Ken Clifford, membe , - the Finance Committee, t• e Solid Waste Subcommittee. . . • - Appointments to the Joint Voluntee, --'wards Committee (Mayor • Dauber) PASSED BY CONSENSUS: To a• `int Judy Marcus and Roger Burnell to t• • oint Volunteer Awards Commi - - and to reappoint Bob Johnson as the Cc cil liaison to this committee. • • . 9.5 Cal' nia Public Utilities Commission worksh.. 'on Cellular mg and Request for Input (Mayor Daube . e City Attorney reported that she planne• . attend this workshop and she would share the Council's concerns that local `•ernment control was important. 9.6 Robleda Storm Drai ue (Mayor Pro Tern Siegel) Siegel asked the statu this project and was advised by the Cit nager that the contractor had n• :een working on this project in a timely Ener and the Town may have to -e< damages. . Fire District Property (Mayor Pro Tern gel) Siegel noted that the fire district prope at Purissima and Arastradero may be cleaned up in the near future. Cr urray was discussing farming this piece of property. April 19, 1995 Regular City Council Meeting 7 • 1.\ .. . \6. 1 .i.. 16 . . . . .‘ ,. ail/.. Y . v-�. I Il1I ,r not he permitted unless this screenin . n he accomplished without interfering.wit the function of 1 ' . truclurc. (c) Color. All surf• and retaining walls shall he colored in natural tones and • ened as appropriate so that the cou is not conspicuous n view d from off-site. (§ 15, Ord. 29', eff. Decem oer 11, 1985) Article 11 . Outdoor Ligh ' g Sec. 10-2.1001. Recreation cour •. - No artifici l lighting s all • permitted for tennis and other recreation couits. (§ 15, Or. . '.9, eff. December 11, 1985) __ Sec. 10-2.1002. mming pools and spas. • Artificial 1'1 ting of swimming pools and - .as shall be permitted o• under the fo lowing conditions: • Light(s) are pla ed beneath the . i rfaceof water in the po• or spa to illuminate the water. (b) Ot er exterior I ghts u , • to illuminate the surrounding area use the inimum w.tt. , which will safely illuminate the area. (c) No direct t i cast beyond the immediate area o e • pool or spa. (d) N• ght sources are directly visible from to e site. (§ 15, Or. '9, eff. Decemb-r 11, 1985) 10-2.10031. Outdoor lighting - ' • eral.. Outdoor lighting should use t - inimum wattage lights whi will safely illuminate the . . Outdoor light sources s be shielded so as not to b- •i ectly visible from off-site. 5, Ord. 299, eff. December , 1985) Articl 11. Driveways Sec. 10-2.11011. Purpose The purposes of this a ticle are to insure that driveways are ° .-... .Y.r:r;_:"= designed and clonstructed t provide adequate sight distances; to allow for emergency acces ; .to be unobtrusive from off-site; to limit the removl of trees a d environmental damag ; and to insure that while minkmizing imp rmeable surfacing, sufficient off-street parking is provided on each site to meet the needs of the occupants, their guests, an service vehicles. (§ 15,i Ord. 299, eff. December II, 1985) 1060 (Los Altos Hills 3-4-87) § 10-2. 1102 LOS A1. 1OS 1111.1.5 MUNICIPAL ('ODE § 10-2. 1202 • Sec. 10-2.1102. Driveway location and construction. (a) Driveways shall enter the fronting road or street in such a manner as to provide safe sight distance and case of ingress and egress, and shall he brought to the road or street at an angle as near a right angle as safety and physical features permit. (h) Natural slope and topography 'shall be retained whenever safely possible. (c) Where the driveway is in an embankment, culverts and embankment protectors shall be used to convey the runoff or other drainage to proper disposal channels. (d) intersections of driveways and pathways shall be surfaced in a manner approved by the City Engineer to minimize the danger of slipping by pedestrians or horses. (e) An encroachment permit shall he required for work to be done in the public right-of-way. (f) The horizontal alignment of the driveway shall be adequate for safe and convenient travel. (g) Driveways shall meet or exceed grade and turning radius standards adopted._by the City Council. Driveways shall not exceed a maximum grade as established by the City Council. (h) Driveways shall not be located within ten (10') feet of ,- anyproperty line except as necessary for. site access and common P P Y P driveways and as approved by the Site Development Authority. (§ 15, Ord. 299, eff. December 11, 1985) Article 12. Road Right- ay Dedication - Sec. 10-2.1201. Purpo . The purpose oft article is to insure that the minimu.• •esign standards for r or driveway rights-of-way are satis :- .' for those lots crea prior to January 1, 1973. (§ 15 'Ord. 299, eff. Dec er 11, 1985) Sec. 10-2.1202. Right-of-way de tion. - W herever a site development;• 'rmit is requested for a lot which k•� "' `"� was created prior to Janua , 1973, and where the drivewa r . contiguous road rights -way are substandard, the Site elop- ment Committee o tinning Commission may requir edication • of a right-of- • - of sufficient width to conform current Town • standards. 5, Ord. 299, eff. December II, 19 . . • I OM (I os Altos Hills 3.4-1171 D. (cont.) Roads and Driveways ,, J Desirable .........„7› J 1•4. 'r,f�,4' rF,r�—• F- €c fv, � ".• ..--.- ��/'}F.,."'L,1T '.'•til P•,;/�i. •I `.i•' Aio. • r �fi�Jc I��r•,e �• - .Y','''<f,.�'• , i. '10';is y -.7-,,�- •-- ►1/(4,x. ,,. .� �� ri fir (�'• rf-.Ff • E. --7.1 -. -,:�L 4'Crd j/,�Vii' • • -...' F f,Ip' , ` ' :-. `,<,!:9._.---:---L—,. ry --- CODES: .tib. ��,1/y_� 1.;. § 10-2,1101 r.• 'i• Discouraged . i i. �.'.• .1 ��r7c.l•- r r; ii 4rf1 !/�`/te:: T 1 :,rf':, .` a ,l}ir ' yb•7�i,'• r. ;'%'.*T14•.I.r<•_/,`ty• hur l Vk� -1•' c !` ' , ,iklioilfic L.- // ,.:. L�,�,"+=t`.1 .' iC.:XG 47 :--• - '4'�"[v=.;'v 1/-r-.es.f;4?+":,' .•`..;•• •' �- !,, • . t Y 3. Double access riveways are •iscouraged unless safety iso a factor. Desirable . v: .j; r-._......_ .. ! ! _ 1 i ':1.4. r,r • 1, rII i(, • IJNE%/„ 1 ({ lti wr .•. • 5 " •i. c°iw 1. �� . ,; I • '7-'r� ', CODES: U" ''. Iil'rb'r . NOTE NON-SLIP s f,' u .,J�,. § 10-2.802(e) 1�--9uRFACE LJNERE •`X•!� �J I' Nil • C RIVEWAY GROSSES ••' . .r•. r § 10-2.1101- ATH. • Y'' r; 2.1102(a) • „•^ I • lld • { 5 • av...:,,,,,,..,. _. . , • lin. „- , -'-..., 1 Li % . • • r..c � vtif• �I, •,\ i 'it I t I ' :;I •,. MVO ter ''4••i; '7ri,' �1 ` \�•\ ,. ' ' r.-1 'ilit. . Nr r ..„ I ‘. ...-1 ,: .. • .. 4. Adequate visibility and sight d stance must be provided where driveway meets the road. 1,:;• 2/94 9