Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout05/17/2001 Minutes of a Regular Meeting May 17, 2001 Town of Los Altos Hills City Council Regular Meeting Thursday, May 17, 2001, 6:00 P.M. Bullis School, 25890 Fremont Road 1. CALL TO ORDER, ROLL CALL AND PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE Mayor Finn called the Regular Meeting of the City Council to order at 6:00 p.m. in the auditorium at Bullis School. Present: Mayor Finn and Councilmembers Casey, Cheng, Fenwick and O'Malley Absent: None Staff: City Manager Maureen Cassingham, Acting City Attorney Dan Siegel, Planning Director Carl Cahill, Public Works Manager Jim Rasp and City Clerk Pat Dowd Press: Liz Cloutman, Los Altos Town Crier 2. PUBLIC HEARINGS A. Introduction of Ordinance amending the Town's Zoning Code with regard to the amount of allowable development area and floor area; review of mitigated negative declaration and addendum to the negative declaration(FIRST READING) The Planning Director referred to his staff report which included the following two proposed ordinance revisions for Council's review. The first applied only to lots with a LUF of less than one and increased the minimum MDA to 7,500 square feet and the MFA to 5,000 square feet. The second embodied the comprehensive modifications proposed by Councilmember Fenwick to the overall formula for calculating floor area and development area for all lots. Council noted that after reviewing this issue they had decided not to entertain Councilmember Fenwick's proposal at this time. This proposal stated that MFA = 3,000 + (gross acreage) 2,000 + 2,000 (LUF - .5) The corresponding MDA formula is MDA= 3,750 + (gross acreage) 7,500+7,500 (LUF—0.5) Council noted that this formula was broader in scope and Council believed they should take a more . conservative approach. Council believed that by pointing this out those in May 17, 2001 Regular City Council Meeting 1 attendance and wishing to speak on this issue would understand that the wider scoped proposal was not being discussed. Greg Zlotnick, Director— Santa Clara Valley Water District, expressed the District's concerns about erosion, sediment and drainage impacts on the creeks. He offered his assistance to the Town in addressing these issues. The following stated their support of the proposed ordinance (MDA = 7,500 and MFA = 5,000): Rein Luik, 10439 Lone Oak Lane; Shazi Hedayafi, 13531 Paseo del a Roble; Sicco Westra, 10574 Blandor Way; C.N. Patel, 12690 Dianne Drive; Rivka Dayan, 25665 Via Cerro Gordo; John Chu, 11650 Dawson Drive; and Mrs. Robertson, 12331 Stonebrook Court. They believed the issue had been studied enough. Comments were also made about land values today and the technical drainage advancements over the last several years. The following did not support the proposed ordinance: Dr. and Mrs. Roos, 13590 Hill Way; Ruth McMahon, 13531 Burke Road; Sandy Humphries, 26238 Fremont Road; Art Lachenbruch, 1820 Buena Vista Road; John Harpootlian, 26435 Anacapa; Sid Hubbard, 25228 La Loma Drive; and Ann Duwe, 25900 Elena. Comments were made that the problem needed to be more clearly defined before any ordinance changes were made. The entire issue needed to be addressed and outside technical experts should be consulted for their opinion. Reference was also made to the recent Town survey results which indicated that the majority of residents were pleased with • the current ordinances. Michael Deering, owner of lot on Summerhill, asked Council to make a decision one way or the other. He was in the process of trying to design his home and he was unable to do this without clear direction. Casey noted that this was the third public hearing on this issue and they had been studying it for over a year. She believed this proposed ordinance was a good first step and that it was supported by the Town survey. Cheng did not support the proposed ordinance but rather the Planning Commission's original recommendation which was to maintain the Town's minimum floor area at 4,000 square feet and increase the minimum development area to 6,500 square feet. As a compromise she believed she could support 7,500 MDA and 4,500 MFA for a six month period to see how it worked. O'Malley also stated his support of the Planning Commission's recommendation. He referred to the Town survey results which stated that 70% of the residents were in agreement with the present ordinances. MOTION SECONDED AND CARRIED: Moved by Casey, seconded by Fenwick and passed by the following roll call vote to introduce an ordinance amending Sections 10-1.5020 and 10-1.5030 of the Zoning Code with regard to allowable development area and floor area as follows: "The allowable development area on any parcel or lot shall not be reduced to less than seven thousand five hundred (7,500) square feet by application of the May 17, 2001 Regular City Council Meeting 2 provisions of this section, except as set forth in Section 10-1.502(e) or except in the • case of parcels or lots which have a Lot Unit Factor of .50 or less. Parcels or lots which have a Lot Unit Factor of .50 or less require a Conditional Development Permit and development area may be restricted below seven thousand five hundred (7,500) square feet as a condition of the permit. Maximum development area for lots which require a Conditional Development Permit shall be 'established as the maximum floor area allowed by Section 10-1.5030 below, plus two thousand one hundred (2,100) square feet. The Site Development Authority may approve development area of up to a total of four thousand five hundred (4,500) square feet for any lot or parcel without requiring a variance, so long as the findings for a Conditional Development Permit are made." "The allowable floor area on any parcel or lot shall not be reduced to less than five thousand (5,000) square feet by application of the provisions of this section, except as set forth in Section 10-1.503(e) or except in the case of parcels or lots which have a Lot Unit Factor of.50 or less. Parcels or lots which have a Lot Unit Factor of.50 or less require a Conditional Development Permit and floor area may be restricted below five thousand (5,000) square feet a s a condition of the permit. Maximum floor area for lots which require a Conditional Development Permit shall be established as the ratio of the Lot Unit Factor (LUF) for the lots divided by 0.50 times five thousand (5,000) square feet. The Site Development Authority may approve floor area of up to two thousand five hundred (2,500) square feet for any lot without requiring a variance, so long as the findings for a Conditional Development • Permit are made." AYES: Mayor Finn and Councilmembers Casey and Fenwick NOES: Councilmembers Cheng and O'Malley B. LUF (Lot Unit Factor) Committee Report Jim Abraham, Chairman of the LUF Committee,referred to the final report as prepared by their committee. As noted in a previous presentation to Council Mr. Abraham pointed out that the committee was unable to reach a unanimous agreement on recommendations to the Council but the following were the recommendations from the majority of committee members: retain the LUF concept, apply the LUF factor as envisioned in Councilmember Fenwick's formula(Proposed ordinance, April 5, 2001 by Councilmember Fenwick: For parcels with LUF greater than .5, MDA=3750+(gross acre)(7500)+7500(LUF -.5); MFA=3000+(gross acre)(2000)+(2000)(LUF-.5)) and approve the proposed MDA/MFA ordinance, address the visual impact changes resulting from the new formula, and address the discrepancies in lot definitions in various areas of the Town. Mr. Abraham believed that there should be a balance between flat and sloped lots. He further commented that more study was needed on this to achieve a long term equitable solution. John Harpoothan, member of the LUF Committee, noted that they all agreed that by changing the formulas more development would result. He believed the slope density May 17, 2001 Regular City Council Meeting 3 formula was needed but should be reasonable. Drainage, general hydrology and grading were all issues that impacted the slope density formula. Charlene Geers, member of the LUF committee, commented that most of the lots in Town were one acre to 1.2 acres and most were constrained. She also noted that building standards had greatly increased over theseveral years. Carl Clement, member of the LUF Committee, was against the slope density formula. He did not believe the Town should be telling people what they can and can not build. Mr. Clement stated that projects had to go through engineering review and the consulting engineering firm, Wilsey Ham, conducted objective reviews and did not involve themselves in politics or subjective reasoning. John Harpootlian presented the comments of Dot Schreiner, a member of the LUF Committee, who was unable to attend the meeting. In summary her recommendations were: The new ordinance should be based on the 4,000—6,500 figures recommended by the staff and the Planning Commission. The LUF formula should be retained for all new subdivisions. Slope density should also be retained. Sandy Humphries, 26238 Fremont Road, stated that all members of the LUF Committee lived on sloped lots except Dot Schreiner. She commented that drainage and erosion were major concerns and she recommended that the Land Use Committee be reestablished. • Jim Abraham, Chairman of the LUF Committee, stated that he took exception to Sandy Humphries' comments. Nancy Fouquet, 13470 Robleda Road, commented that what happened in Los Altos Hills affected other neighboring communities. She suggested considering lots on an individual basis and believed smaller was better. DuBose Montgomery, 27464 Altamont; Armin Staprans (representing 27900 Roble Blanco Court) and Luis Yanez, 26879 Moody Road spoke in support of changing the Town's lot unit factor. They believed technical expertise had greatly improved over the last several years and the lot unit factor should be modified to more appropriately deal with the lots in the Town. Art Lachenbruch, 11820 Buena Vista; Doni Hubbard, 25228 La Loma Drive; and Ruth McMahon, 13531 Burke Road supported the present lot unit factor and its application to lots in the Town. While pointing out that there were some problems with the lot unit factor they believed it worked well and could be modified without changing the basic philosophy. References were made to attributes of the Town such as wooded natural settings, rural,park like,trees which they believed presented a clear vision of what the Town wanted to protect. May 17, 2001 Regular City Council Meeting 4 Council thanked the LUF Committee members for all of their hard work and the excellent report they prepared on this difficult issue. Council believed this was a good first step and that further review and study was needed. MOTION SECONDED AND CARRIED: Moved by Casey, seconded by Cheng and passed unanimously to create a Site Development Ordinance Committee to be charged with reviewing the LUF (lot unit factor) drainage and grading issues and bringing a report back to the Council in September. This committee shall include the following: Councilmember Fenwick, Jim Abraham- Chairman, Carl Cottrell, Charlene Geers and John Harpootlian. The committee shall also be encouraged to bring in consultants (e.g. Santa Clara Valley Water District)to assist them in their efforts. 3. PRESENTATIONS FROM THE FLOOR 4. CONSENT CALENDAR Items Removed: 4/19/01 Special Meeting Minutes (Casey), 4/26/01 Special Meeting Minutes (Fenwick) MOTION SECONDED AND CARRIED: Moved by O'Malley, seconded by Casey and passed unanimously to approve the balance of the Consent Calendar, specifically: • A. Approved Minutes: April 19, 2001 (Regular Meeting) B. Approved Warrants: $642,006.56 (4/11/01 —5/8/01) C. Approved agreement with Vavrinek, Trine, Day& Company for Professional Audit Services—Reso #27-01 D. Accepted dedication of right of way, Lands of Joffe, 14790 Manuella Road--Reso. #28-01 E. Accepted grant of conservation easement, Lands of Askarinam, 27830 Elena Road—Reso #29-01 F. Accepted dedication of right of way, Lands of Owen, 25751 Elena Road— Reso #30-01 G. Accepted dedication of right of way, Lands of El Dorado Venture Partners IV, 13221 West Sunset Drive—Reso #31-01 H. Accepted grant of conservation easement, Lands of Cottrell, 13480 North Fork Lane—Reso #32-01 • May 17, 2001 Regular City Council Meeting 5 I. Concurred with Fast Track Application approved by the Planning • Director: Lands of Schilling, 13650 Paseo Del Roble: site development permit for a new residence J. Concurred with Fast Track Application approved by the Planning Director: Lands of Boonmark, 27233 Deer Springs Way: site development permit for a new residence Items Removed: A. Approval of Minutes: April 19, 2001 Special Meeting April 26, 2001 Special Meeting MOTION SECONDED AND CARRIED: Moved by Casey, seconded by Fenwick and passed unanimously to approve the minutes of the April 19, 2001 Special Council Meeting with the following correction: page 2, item 2, last paragraph, last sentence should read: ". . . . .meeting on April 26 to continue this hearing so that a written report could be submitted by the LUF Committee and the City Council and Planning Commission could further understand this issue." ; and to approve the minutes of the April 26, 2001 Special Meeting with the following correction: page 2, first paragraph,the formula should read: ". . . .MFA= 3000+(gross acre)(2000)+(2000)(LUF-.5). 5. UNFINISHED BUSINESS A. Approval of policy, procedure and guidelines for Sanitary Sewer Reimbursement Agreements Council had before them a draft document of the policy, procedure and guidelines for sanitary sewer reimbursement agreements. This document had been produced as a result of the discussions and comments made at the April 19th Council Meeting. Allan Epstein, 23828 Ravensbury Avenue,raised several questions about the draft document. He asked why the cost should be incurred of requiring a topographic map prepared by a licensed civil engineer. He also questioned the statement that land acquisition costs would be limited to the appraised cost of the land as determined by a certified, Town selected and directed appraiser. Mr. Epstein further did not think that section 9a which stated"future users shall only include those properties that will directly benefit from the construction as follows: For gravity sanitary sewer mains, future users are all those properties that have frontage along the gravity sewer main and can connect directly, via a single lateral,to the gravity sanitary sewer main. The minimum length of sanitary sewer main extension that the City Engineer will permit to be constructed in the public right of way shall be 200 lineal feet." addressed the issue of fairness. He suggested changing 200 to 400. Mr. Epstein stated that he believed the definition of fairness needed to be established before this policy was decided. He further believed it should include paying proportional costs equal to the benefits. May 17, 2001 Regular City Council Meeting 6 Bruce Askari, 27830 Elena Road, concurred with Mr. Epstein's comments and stated that he thought the `direct connect' was unfair. Council had also received a letter from Ken Olcott, 12950 Brendel Drive, which included his recommendations that 1) 9a should read for gravity sanitary sewer mains, future users are all those properties that have frontage along the gravity sewer main and the properties that are within 500' upstream from the main extension measured along an existing public right of way or sewer easement. And delete the following section: The Property Owner may, and is encouraged to, extend the gravity sanitary sewer main past the Owner's property to include additional properties into the reimbursement agreement service area." PASSED BY CONSENSUS: To continue discussion of this item to the next meeting to allow staff the opportunity to address the comments made at this meeting and to further schedule a closed session at the next meeting on this subject prior to the Council's discussion of sanitary sewer reimbursement agreements. B. Council Priorities for Planning Commission Assignments (i.e. setbacks, heights, etc.) MOTION SECONDED AND CARRIED: Moved by Casey, seconded by Cheng and passed unanimously to establish the following priority list of Planning Commission assignments: 1) mandatory two car garages vs. carports; and carports -- floor area or development area; 2) setbacks and building heights; three stories and three story facades; 3) landscaping requirements and deposit amount; and 4) conservation easements. The drainage master plan was deleted. Siting issues including cut and fill, retaining walls and foundation step-down requirements will be sent to the Site Development Ordinance Committee for review. 6. NEW BUSINESS A. Suggested Revision to Section 10-1.206,Net Area The Planning Director referred to his staff report which included the current definition of`net area' as follows: "Net Area" shall mean the gross area of any parcel or lot of land, less panhandles and all public and private easements for vehicular access within the parcel or lot, excluding easements primarily for emergency access. The Planning Director suggested for the purposes of determining LUF only, that the definition of net area could be modified to exclude only paved portions of panhandles and all public and private easements for vehicular access. This suggested change would generate small increases in allowable development area and floor area for many lots with access easement frontage; however, the ratio of permeable surface to impermeable surface on any given lot would not be reduced. Charlene Geers, 12742 Leander Drive, commented on the issue of gross acreage and easements 20' from the center of the road. She also noted that it did not matter if the ieasement was paved or not. May 17, 2001 Regular City Council Meeting 7 • Jim Abraham, 12831 Viscaino Road, believed it was an issue of fairness and the easement should to to the centerline of the road if that was they way it was shown on the map. Carl Cottrell, 13480 N. Fork Lane, concurred with Charlene Geers. Ginger Summit, representing the Pathways Committee, noted that roadside paths would be affected if right of ways were eliminated. MOTION SECONDED AND CARRIED: Moved by Fenwick, seconded by Casey and passed by the following roll call vote to direct the City Attorney to prepare an ordinance amending the Municipal Code regarding the definition of net area as recommended by the Planning Director. AYES: Mayor Finn and Councilmembers Casey, Fenwick and O'Malley NOES: None ABSTAIN: Councilmember Cheng 7. REPORT FROM PLANNING COMMISSION The Planning Director reported on the following applications discussed at the 5/10/01 Commission Meeting: Lands of Perloff, 25601 Chapin Road: request for a variance for a trellis to encroach into the side setback — denied (applicant did not show up for hearing) and Lands of Huang, 27580 Arastradero Road: request to subdivide a 12.60 acre parcel into six lots and consideration of a proposed negative declaration—approved(will be on 6/7/01 Council agenda). 8. ADJOURNMENT There being no further new or old business to discuss, the City Council Meeting was adjourned at 9:35 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Patricia Dowd City Clerk The minutes of the May 17, 2001 Regular City Council Meeting were approved at the June 7, 2001 Regular City Council Meeting. May 17, 2001 Regular City Council Meeting 8