Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout10/29/1980PLANNING COMMISSION Town of Los Altos Hills 26379 Fremont Road Los Altos Hills, California MINUTES OF A CONTINUED MEETING Wednesday, October 29, 1980 The meeting of the Planning Commission was called to order by Chairman vanTamelen at 7:50 p.m. in the Committee Room of the Town Hall. ROLL CALL: Present: Commissioners Carico, Dochnahl, Lachenbruch, Stewart, vanTamelen Absent: Commissioners Kuranoff and Rvdell (excused absences) Also Present: City Engineer/Planner Sohn A. Carlson, Secretary Leslie Penfold WORKSHOP ITEMS: 1) PROPOSED MASTER. PATHWAY ELEMENT Commissioners began their review of the path and trail element with the five alternatives for principle #1 as suggested at the October 22, 1980 Planning Commission meeting. It was Passed by consensus to amend Principle !EI to read as follows: `. All paths and trails should be carefully located and designed to Preserve the beauty and natural character of the area, to safeguard the user, and to preserve the privacy of the property owners. Where these ends are in conflict, priorities must be applied to determine whether or not a particular path routing should be established. Such Priorities should depend on the reasons for establishing the path and the nature of the adverse impact. Although nearly all paths serve a variety of interlocking purposes, the needs they serve must be weighed against possible disadvantages or intrusions. For paths needed for safe passage along essential routes,(as an example: those necessary for children to walk to school or bus stop), safety of the user is the primary concern, even if some privacy must be sacrificed. Paths primarily for convenience, (e.g. those connecting bead -to -head cul-de-sacs), form an indispensable Part of the system and subdivisions must be designed to accommodate them without undue sacrifice of the Privacy on adjacent lots. For paths primarily for recreation, in less densly developed portions of Town, the reasonable Privacy of the Propertv owners should be assured in selecting from among alternate path locations. Passed by Consensus to add one category to the Bikeway Man as follows: Connecting Multipurpose Paths Standards #2 was amended and renumbered as #4. Standards lit was amended as follows: For Regional bikeways efforts should be made to establish bike lanes, climbing lanes, or edged marked shoulders on the designated routes. Where the County and Town Standards differ, the Town Standards should prevail. Standards #3 was re -numbered as #5. New Standards 43 will read as follows: Major bikeways within road right-of-ways should PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES OF OCTOBER 29, 1980 PAGE TWO consist of either a paved path separated from the roadway or clearly marked bike lanes adjacent to the vehicular travel lanes with as much width as is feasible. Rolled curbs or a safe shoulder should be provided along all bike lanes. Major bikeways within ease- ments should be paved. Standards 44 was amended and re -numbered as P6. It was passed by consensus to add Standards #7 to read as follows: Where major paths coinside along arterial roads paths should be sited along both sides of the road. Where it is only feasible to establish a major path on one side of a road, considerable effort should be made to maintain the continuity of the path on one side of the road. Standards 115 was re -numbered as 118. CLASSIFICATIONS: 1) Sentence 42 of Regional Bikeways was changed to #2 of Standards. 2) Sentence 112 of Major Bikeways was changed to #3 of Standards. It was passed by consensus to add category 113: Local Bikeways to read as follows: Local Bikeways are along roads and provide a means for travel from one neighborhood to another. Widening and striving of the roads is not contemplated unless for safety reasons. It was passed by consensus to amend %3 and re -number as 114 as follows under Classifica- tions' 4. Connecting Multipurpose Paths: Although not a part of the bikeway system, Multipurpose paths can be used as connecting links as shown on the Master Bikeway Plan. The remainder of the Element was reviewed and amended with minor changes. MOTION SECONDED AND PASSED UNANIMOUSLY: It was moved by Commissioner Carico and seconded by Commissioner Stewart to accept the Path and Trail Element as amended, and send to Mr. Gillio for re -writing and preparation of Ordinance and to set the Public Hearing for final consideration. 2) DEVELOPMENT INTENSITY LIMITATION ORDINANCE Commissioner Lachenbruch gave a review of the proposed Ordinance dated October 16, 1980, indicating changes made since the last review by the Planning Commission. Another meet- ing took place with staff, Councilman Perkins, Alan Lambert, Paul Nowack and himself to go over mainly Item # (c) in the proposed ordinance. Item (c) pertains to the development area living space over twenty feet (20') from the natural ground in excess of 2,000 square feet. Alan Lambert has suggested another alternative for (c) as follows: Included in development area is any floor space above twelve feet (12') above natural ground level Commissioners discussed different aspects of this ordinance with Ken Pastrof and other members attending the workshop meeting. Commissioners felt the proposed ordinance was workable, but needed further work on a purpose statement. There was discussion of having George Mader prepare the purpose statement, a letter will be addressed to him requesting this be done. More work will be done by the Committee before review again by the Planning Commission, and will be returned as soon as possible. 3) PROPOSED FENCING ORDINANCE Commissioner Lachenbruch prepared a rough draft of the proposed ordinance and presented it to the Commission. Commissioners discussed the draft and felt it was exactly what PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES OF OCTOBER 29, 1980 PACE THREE [ was needed. There were minor changes made to the draft. Commissioner Carico left the meeting at 12:10 a.m., stating before she left that she was in favor of this proposed ordinance as presented. MOTION SECONDED AND PASSED UNANIMOUSLY: It was moved by Commissioner Stewart and seconded by Commissioner Dochnahl to approve the proposed Fencing Ordinance as amended, and send to Mr. Gillio for re -writing and preparation of the Ordinance and to set the Public Hearing. There being no further new or old business, the meeting was adjourned at 12:20 a.m Respectfully submitted, Leslie Penfold Engineering/Planning Secretary