Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout04/17/1980I PLANNING COMMISSION Town of Los Altos Hills 26379 Fremont Road Los Altos Hills, California MINUTES OF AN ADJOURNED MEETING Thursday, April 17, 1980 Reel 85, Side 1, Tr.2, 913 to End Chairman vanTamelen called the Study Session to order at 7:50 p.m. in the Council Chambers of Town Hall. ROLL CALL: Present: Commissioners Carico, Lachenbruch, Rydell, Stewart, Dochnahl, Kuranoff, vanTamelen Absent: None Also Present: John Carlson, City Engineer/Planner; Ethel Hopkins, Secretary 1. STATEMENT OF PURPOSES FOR ORDINANCE REVISIONS: Commissioners discussed memos written by Commissioners Lachenbruch and vanTamelen on reasons for the ordinance changes being proposed. MOTION SECONDED AND PASSED UNANIMOUSLY: It was moved by Commissioner Carico and 4W seconded by Commissioner Stewart that the memos on ordinance changes be sent on to the City Council. (Memos were dated April 9th and 10th.) Chairman vanTamelen's memo was to be amended under "Purposes" with the statement: It is the intent to exer- cise the minimum controls necessary to achieve the purpose of the General Plan. 2. IMPERMEABLE SURFACES ORDINANCE: Mr. Carlson and Commissioner Lachenbruch dis- cussed for the Commissioners a revised ordinance on Building Coverage and Impervious Surface Limitations, illustatin9 the effects of the proposed ordinance by means of a graph. Commissioner Lachenbruch suggested that the legal aspects of the proposed ordinance and graph demonstration be clarified with the City Attorney. Commissioners discussed the effects of the ordinance changes as demonstrated by Commissioner Lachenbruch's graph. The following changes were made in the ordinance proposal submitted with the cover memo dated April 16: Page 1: Add Section 9-5.208.2. Impervious Surface. "Impervious Surface" shall be the total impermeable area measured in a horizontal plane within the net area of a lot, including but not limited to, driveways, patios, roofs, decks, swimming pools and tennis courts. Add subsection (b) under Section 9-5.502: Impervious surface, as defined in Section 9-5.208.2, shat not exceed -the maximum as calculated by the following formulas: Page 2: Delete subsection (b) at the top of page two. It was superceded by the addon of subsection (b) above. 4W Revise the bottom paragraph on the page to read: In calculating impervious surface, portions of driveway up to twelve feet (12') wide and more than two hundred feet (200') from the residence or secondary dwelling may be excluded from the calculations. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES - April 17, 1980 Page two \✓ 2. IMPERMEABLE SURFACES ORDINANCE: (continued) It was the CONSENSUS to send the proposed ordinance to the City Attorney for drafting into proper ordinance language. 3. FENCING ORDINANCE: After a short review of past ordinance proposals on fencing, ommissioners considered various areas in the Town where fencing was a problem. Barbara Gordon Trads ffic and Public Safety Committee, recommended open fencing along present residential roa. Commissioners made the following proposals for consideration as ordinance statements: Commissioner Kuranoff: Suggested offsetting of fencing around subdivisions so that the "wall effect would be avoided. The following statement was suggested: Along roads exterior to a subdivision, buffer landscaping easements may be required to mitigate the possibility of a continuous property line fence. Another proposal made was: Along public roads, buffer easements will be required to preserve an open space character. Land- scaping may be required and fences prohibited within these buffer easements. Commissioner Lachenbruch: Suggested the wording: Where backyards or side yards border public roads, a buffer easement of fifteen feet (15') will be ( required within which no fence may be placed. 6r Also suggested: Side yard and back yard fences, when they border public roads, cannot be in the setback. ... Fences adjacent to public roads cannot be put on the property line but must be set back fifteen feet (15'). ... The height of of the fence cannot exceed one-third of the distance from the property line adjacent to the roadway. Commissioner Stewart: Suggested a subsection (g) be added to the "Proposed Ordinance on Fencing" submitted by Commissioner Dochnahl. Section (g): (materials prohibited for fencing) Stucco over frame. Commissioner Carico: Noted that some materialsshould be banned for use as fencing. Commissioner Kuranoff suggested that the Commissioners consider carefully materials that are proposed for banning. He called attention to a house on Edgerton with a very attractive masonry wall. Mr. Carlson recommended that staff check into ways that surrounding cities regulate fencing. Discussion was concluded, with the request that statements made on fencing be considered by the Planning Commission at their meeting of April 23. 4. POSSIBLE ORDINANCE APPROACH TO RIDGELINES PRESERVATION: Commissioner vanTamelen noted, in reference to er memo to t e Assistant P anner dated April 9, that the General Plan contains a statement on ridge lines. Assistant Planner Pat Webb discussed a study doneby Mader & Associates identifying various ridge lines in the area, showed slides of the study area (taken some ten years ago when the study was done), and then reviewed ridge line development ordinances used by various hillside communities to control development, i.e. Cupertino, Lafayette, Saratoga. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES - April 17, 1950 Page three E 4. POSSIBLE ORDINANCE APPROACH TO RIDGELINES PRESERVATION: (continued) Commissioners discussed various proposals for limiting development along ridgelines in the Town, and Commissioners Kuranoff and Rydell promised to arrange a date for a meeting with Mr. Reneau and his committee regarding ridge line preservation proposals. Commissioner vanTamelen suggested that in the meantime the Commissioners and staff try to define Town ridgelines on a map that should be singled out for preservation. Mr. Carlson noted that staff would try and obtain USGS maps with which to identify Town ridgeline areas, transfer the information to a Town map and submit this infor- mation to the Commission for consideration. ADJOURNMENT: There being no further business, the study session was adjourned at 11:35 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Ethel Hopkins Secretary I* U L