Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout04/05/2001 (2) Minutes of a Special Meeting April 5, 2001 Town of Los Altos Hills Joint City Council and Planning Commission Special Meeting Thursday, April 5, 2001, 5:00 P.M. Council Chambers, 26379 Fremont Road 1. CALL TO ORDER AND ROLL CALL Mayor Finn called the Special Meeting of the City Council and Planning Commission to order at 5:10 p.m. at Town Hall. Present: Mayor Finn and Councilmembers Casey, Cheng, • Fenwick and O'Malley Planning Carl Cottrell—Chairman, Carol Gottlieb,Eric Clow Commissioners: Janet Vitu and Charles Wong(arrived at 5:55 p.m.) Staff: City Manager Maureen Cassingham, City Attorney Sandy Sloan, Planning Director Carl Cahill, Public Works Manager Jim Rasp and City Clerk Pat Dowd Press: Liz Cloutman, Los Altos Town Crier 2. JOINT MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL AND PLANNING COMMISSION A. Fast track assessment Fenwick A discussion was held on how the fast track process was working. It was agreed that it saved staff a lot of time and gave the Commission the opportunity to focus on other issues. Gottlieb believed that in some situations the neighbors' opinions were not being respected but others responded that there was a public notice/appeal process in place to protect the neighbors. B. Site drainage assessment and control Fenwick • April 5, 2001 Special City Council Meeting 1 i Items B, C and O were addressed together. The issue was raised that if development was increased beyond the grading ordinance was the Town going to uphold its ordinances and if not how was this going to affect the visual appearance of the hills and the increased development allowed on lots. Fenwick stated that according to the current Code the City Engineer was responsible for reviewing drainage and erosion impacts. Cottrell recommended a Master Plan which would show where all the drainage in Town goes. C. Site erosion assessment and control Fenwick D. Site grading restrictions Fenwick It was noted that this was a policy and not an ordinance. It was agreed that this was an issue that needed to be reviewed by the Commission. E. Retaining wall regulations Fenwick It was noted that this was a policy and not an ordinance. It was agreed that this was an issue that needed to be reviewed by the Commission. Gottlieb reiterated her concerns that this issue needed to be looked at in connection • with others and how they each affected one another. F. Swimming pools in development area Fenwick The question was asked as to how this issue was first raised and whether it was still applicable. It was agreed this issue would be reviewed. G. Setbacks vs. height restriction Fenwick Casey suggested looking at the setback and height restrictions for larger homes and perhaps allowing an increased height for homes with larger setbacks. Finn suggested perhaps offering some kind of incentives for such increases in setbacks. It was agreed all setbacks of a home would need to be considered and Gottlieb urged that neighbors' views be considered. Casey further commented that the design guidelines were out of date and needed to be reviewed. H. Council's expectations of the Planning Commission Cottrell Casey recommended a broader role for the Planning Commission which included administering the ordinances of the Town in a fair and consistent April 5, 2001 Special City Council Meeting 2 manner, providing a realistic picture of what applicants can expect planning wise and thinking ahead and planning for the infrastructure of the Town. Fenwick also suggested a routine check of the current ordinances looking for areas of improvement. The question was also asked if there were any issues the Commission was dealing with for which they did not feel they had adequate direction from the Council. Gottlieb cautioned against making changes in one area of the code without fully understanding the total ramifications of such a change. I. Goals for the Planning Commission: setbacks vs. heights, view protection, third story Cottrell Cottrell referred to this issue of third story facades and noted that while no one seemed to like this element he could find nothing in the code about it. Gottlieb noted that it was a result of the homes built on Saddle Mountain in the 70s and their appearance of three story structures. It was agreed that references to third story elements should be removed. J. Land Use Element Cottrell Cottrell asked how the Council was going to approach dealing with the survey results and the continued review of the land use element. Council stated that they would get the survey results first and then decide how they were going to address them. The Planning Director noted that a request for proposals was being prepared for a General Plan Consultant. K. Appeals Casey Casey stated her opinion that staff planning decisions should be appealed by Commissioners and not by Council. It was agreed that the fast track process would be checked regarding the appeal process. Gottlieb also raised the issue that she thought it unfair that an applicant would have to pay at the Commission level for a hearing but not at the Council level if they were able to get a Councilmember to appeal the decision. A discussion followed but it was basically agreed that a project should be appealed because one wanted clarification of a decision or had questions about it not to save an applicant the appeal fee. In addition an applicant would not have to pay if they were able to get two Planning Commissioners to appeal a decision. L. Issues that need to be addressed: setbacks, height limits, drainage plan,pathway material Casey • April 5, 2001 Special City Council Meeting 3 Casey stated that after the survey results had been received and reviewed an off road pathway policy needed to be formalized. M. Planning Commissioners/Councilmembers attendance at each others meetings—appropriate role when in attendance Casey Casey noted that at one time Councilmembers attended Planning Commission meetings and she thought this was a good practice to continue. Formerly Council had agreed to send a representative to each Commission meeting. Councilmembers would not participate in the meetings but she thought it was informational to personally attend the meetings. Regarding Commissioners attending Council Meetings it was reiterated that they should not speak as Commissioners on an application. The current process of having the Planning Director give a report on Commission meetings would continue. It was agreed the Planning Director would prepare a schedule for Council representatives at Planning Commission Meetings. N. Town contracts Casey Casey suggested looking at the entire building process and working toward • making it a more efficient. This included the application review process which was now done both by staff and consultants. Casey also suggested reviewing the Town's contracts annually and Finn stated that he wanted to see contracts two to three months before their expiration so Council had time to conside their options. O. Discussion of grading policy and drainage issues Gottlieb P. More specific guidelines and direction are needed from Council to avoid appearance of division between Planning Commission and City Council. Examples include: Campi bunker, Yanez basement, constrained lot ordinance, setbacks for air conditioners Wong Q. Should the Planning Commission review Site Development applications for items not included with the Zoning and Site Development Ordinance such as building code and structural engineering issues? Are there issues of liability to consider? Wong The City Attorney noted that the Town was not liable for approving a project unless it was a public project. April 5, 2001 Special City Council Meeting 4 R. Bi picture—what should the Planning Commission be working Big g g on besides reviewing site development? Clow This was discussed under Item H. S. Landscaping Requirements Finn Finn added this item for consideration. He felt it was very important to increase the landscaping required on projects in the Town and also increase the landscaping deposits required on projects. Presently it was about $5,000 which was far from adequate. The issue was discussed and a $50,000 deposit was thought to be more reasonable to ensure that the landscaping would be done. Casey thought this figure was much too high. It was agreed this issue would be reviewed. 3. PRESENTATIONS FROM THE FLOOR 4. ADJOURNMENT There being no further new or old business to discuss, the City Council • Meeting was adjourned at 6:00 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Patricia Dowd City Clerk The minutes of the April 5, 2001 Special City Council Meeting were approved at the April 19, 2001 Regular City Council Meeting. April 5, 2001 Special City Council Meeting 5