Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout04/03/1980W PLANNING COMMISSION %W Town of Los Altos Hills 26379 Fremont Road Los Altos Hills, California MINUTES OF AN ADJOURNED MEETING Thursday, April 3, 1980 Reel 85, Side 1, Tr. 1, 315 to End; Side II, Tr.2 001 to 656 The Planning Commission Study Session was called to order by Chairman vanTamelen at 7:49 p.m. in the Council Chambers of the Town Hall. ROLL CALL: Present: Commissioners Rydell, Kuranoff, Dochnahl, Stewart, Lachenbruch and vanTamelen; Commissioner Carico arrived at 8:15 p.m. Absent: None Also Present: City Engineer/Planner John Carlson, Assistant Planner Pat Webb, Secretary Ethel Hopkins STATUS OF AD HOC COMMITTEES: Status reports were given on the following Ad Hoc Committees: Conservation Easements: No report (Commissioner Carico was not present.) Roads and Right -of -Way Standards; Commissioner Kuranoff noted that nothing was happening on this at the moment, and that he felt that House Size and Design and Light Pollution were more important at the moment. He requested more time to complete his assignment. Pathways: Commissioner Dochnahl said that he had met with the Pathway Committee and they were getting a pathways map ready for the Town. He stated that the Committee wanted Planner George Mader's help in organizing an element for pathways in the General Plan. Marginal Lots and Site Constraints: Commissioner vanTamelen noted that many of the problems noted by this committee were being taken care of by proposed ordinances being discussed. Other changes would be considered. Secondary Dwellings & Multiple Family Use: Commissioner Stewart noted that his committee would meet soon to consider the assignment. House Size and Design: Mr. Kuranoff noted Mr. Reneau's efforts to establish an Architectural Review Board and staff's efforts to review what surrounding towns did to establish criteria for building. Drainage Committee: Commissioner Lachenbruch noted that he impervious surface ordinance under consideration Oelated to the drainage problem under consideratior Light Pollution: Commissioner Kurnoff noted his committee had not met on this; Solar Panel Control: Neither had action been taken on this matter. Commissioner Kuranoff noted that neighbors had installed non-reflecting solar panels, and that this type of panel should be investigated. Fences: Commissioner Dochnahl asked that a fencing ordinance draft be placed on the agenda of the next meeting for consideration. �w 6 �41 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES - April 3, 1980 Page two REVIEW OF TENNIS COURT POLICY STATEMENT: Discussion continued on the revising of the Tennis Court Policy Statement, with discussion taking place on paqe three of the policy statement, "Landscaping". Paul Nowack & Associates, 127 Second Street, Los Altos, asked for — -Fe— on of t lowest possible grade for a tennis court and how this might affect the builder's , desire to preserve a wooded area on a lot. PASSED BY CONSENSUS: That Item 1. of the "Landscaping" section read: 1.1-andscaping will be required to assure that the tennis court and its fencinq are visually unobtru- sive when viewed from all directions. A careful search shall be madej-ftV� off-site locations in planning for this objective or in preparing the landscape plans. Screen- ing designed to be functional within two years shall be planned and planted accordingly. In general, the court shall be constructed in cut rather than fill to the greatest extent feasible to provide a lower finished grade and less visual impact; landscaping berms may also be used to provide effective screening. A bond sufficient to guarantee maintenance and care of landscaping shall be deposited with the Town. 1 Commissioner vanTamelen asked Assistant Planner Pat Webb to work on specific guide- lines for implementation of the landscaping policy section. Item 2 of the "Landscaping" section remains as written in the original draft. No change was made in the section titled "Design", and the comments on page four of the draft were deleted entirely as a part of the tennis court policy statement. Additional consideration turned to "Setbacks" on page one of the draft. PASSED BY CONSENSUS: That the first sentence of that section remain as written, namely: The specific setbacks of the Town should be maintained, expecially where current neighbors orpotential neighbors are concerned. ao�w,&, hkwA, Oil Considerable discussion occurred on how and under what circumstances variances might be tolerated under the tennis court policy recommended in order to accommodate tennis courts. Commissioner Carico stated for the record that she was against the whole setback section for the reason that it would create more variances. She stated that she would vote against anything that would encourage Town residents to work against the General Plan and Town ordinances. Commissioner Rydell stated that the tennis court policy statement was not a draft of guidelines for variances. Its purpose was to make a statement to the City Council, and if they desired to provide further direction for Planning Commission action, they could do so. Commissioner Carico felt that with the policy statement, the Town was granting special preference for tennis courts and encouraging a special group to go against Town ordi- nances. MOTION SECONDED AND CARRIED: It was moved by Contnissioner Lachenbruch and seconded by Commissioner vanlamelen to complete the section on "Setbacks" with the following sentence: Encroachments into setbacks might be considered under exceptional circum- stances of non-residential land use or less restrictive zoning on adjoining properties. (All other material listed in the "draft" under this section was deleted.) VOTE: AYES: Comnissioners vanTamelen, Rydell, Kuranoff; NOES: Commissioners Carico and Dochnahl; ABSTAINED: Commissioner Lachenbruch and Stewart Review of the Tennis Court Policy Statement was completed with the above motion. The Commission took a short break from 9:50 to 10:00 P.m. �W 40 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES - April 3, 1980 Page three AMENDMENTS TO THE LOS ALTOS HILLS MUNICIPAL CODE: (continued from the March 26th meeti—ng7 Amendments to Ordinance on Building Height, Section 9-5.208 and 9-5.209: Commissioners considered the statement of "Purpose" for the Building Height amendment, and made changes in a revised Section 5.209 submitted by Mr. Carlson. Mr. Carlson then gave a slide presentation showing how various buildings in the Town would be affected by the revised ordinances. Changes made to the proposed ordinance were the following; Under "Purpose" it was the consensus that the next to the last sentence should read: The building height redefinition provides a stricter interpretation of building height so that the maximum height of thirty (30) feet, as specified in the Municipal Code, is measured either from natural ground or cut, whichever is lower. Changes made in Section 9-5.209 by consensus were that this section should read as follows: "Building height" shall mean the vertical distance from the natural ground level which existed prior to grading for the building, or the building pad if excavated to natural ground level , whichever elevation is lower, to the highest part of the building directly above. Natural in this context means the surface established by natural processes without intervention by man and without grading. If a building is designed with retaining walls, and earth is in contact with the wall to provide living space below the natural grade, the building height shall be the vertical distance from the surface to the highest point of the building established by the reasonable extension of finished grade contours through the building. In no case will the contours be above the natural grade contours. Changes made in Section 9-5.503 "Height" by consensus were the following: Section (a) was amended to read: Structures. No structure, or part thereof, including aerial towers and chimneys shall be constructed or altered to exceed thirty (30) feet in building height. The next sentence was amended to read: Furthermore, within thirty feet (30') from the structural setback line, the building height, excepting chimneys, shall be reduced. (The remaining sentences on the page were unchanged.) Considerable discussion occurred on the reasons for the proposed ordinances: Commission- er Lachenbruch noted that the proposed ordinances would help make a statement about how the Town feels about large structures placed on small lots - large structures should not be on small lots. Commissioner Carico questioned whether these proposed ordinances did make the statement the Corinission wished to make; she stated her concern over whether additions to existing dwellings might be prevented by the proposed ordinances. Com- missioner Rydell questioned whether placing homes in the center of lots is good; not much would be gained by it. Commissioner Stewart questioned whether the height ordi- nance might better be issued as a guideline for an architectural review committee. Alan La n't I 'irs� '�reet, Los Altos, questioned the overall purpose of the L E� proposed ordinlalnlc,s ��d feTt that. the lown was making a mistake by implementing such proposals. He felt that chimneys should not be included in the height limitation, and felt that with the impermeable surface limitation builders were being forced to build two story houses. Commissioner Kuranoff noted the need for a strongly worded statement of purpose and a statement on the means of implementation. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES - April 3, 1980 Page four $4W AMENDMENTS TO THE LOS ALTOS HILLS MUNICIPAL CODE: (contined from the March 26th Meeting: Tc`o_nt—ined�_ Amendments to Ordinance on Building Height, Section 9-5.208 and 9-5.209: MOTION SECONDED AND CARRIED: It was moved by Commissioner Dochnahl and seconded by Commissioner vanTamelen to recommend approval of the Building Height and Building Envelope proposals with a strongly worded statement of purpose stating that the code requirements are absolute minimum standards for building. VOTE: AYES: Commissioners vanTamelen, Lachenbruch, Dochnahl-, NOES: Commissioners Rydell and Stewart; ABSTAINED: Commissioner Carico; (Commissioner Kuranoff was excused from the meeting at 11:05 and did not vote on the motion.) Commissioner Carico noted that the reason she had abstained from the voting was that she wanted to see the statement of purpose that would be sent with the ordinances. Increase in Cul-de-sac Right -of -Ways, Section 9-4.703, etc. Proposed Amendment: Commissioners reviewed background information on the increase in cul-de-sac right- of-ways and then opened the hearing to the public discussion. Ken Pastrof asked how the forty foot right-of-way had failed its purpose, noted that an increase in the roadway size would result in the need for further maintenance, questioned what this proposal would achieve, and noted that by pushing the dwelling further back from the roadway, longer driveways would be required. Commissioner Lacheribruch stated that larger rights -of -ways would prevent crowding like the Berger subdivision, and Commissioner Dochnahl noted that wider rights -of - ways would allow for pathways within the roadway area with enough room for protection for pedestrians and equestrians. The following amendments were made in the proposed ordinance: Under "Purpose", the Code reference was amended toSection 9-4.102(k)'; on page two of the ordinance a subsection (d) was added: (d) Space for safe driveway approaches; at the bottom of page two, an additional sentence was added to the paragraph beginning "Cul-de-sac rights-of-way..." At the end of the paragraph the following was added: This right- of-way area will also be required for hammerheads. The first sentence of the bottom paragraph was amended to read: "At the intersection of two or more streets, the property lines ...... (the rest of the sentence remains as written.) MOTION SECONDED AND PASSED UNANIMOUSLY: It was moved by Commissioner Stewart and seconded by Commissioner Dochnahl to refer the proposed amendment on cul-de-sac rights -of -ways to Mr. Gillio for formulation into proper ordinance language. Commissioner Lachenbruch noted that the impervious surface amendment to the Code should be considered first in a study session, and then in a public hearing. In that light, the Planning Commission determined that Thursday, April Wth, a Study Session would be scheduled at 7:45 p.m. It was also determined that the Commission shoold-consider the overall statement of purpose for the proposed ordinance revisions, ADJOURNMENT: �Iw There being no further business to discuss, the meeting was adjourned at 11:50 P.m. Respectfully submitted, Ethel Hopkins Secretary