Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout01/29/1997Minutes of a Special Meeting January 29,1997 Town of Los Altos Hills City Council Meeting Wednesday, January 29,1996, 5:00 P.M. Council Chambers, 26379 Fremont Road CALL TO ORDER AND ROLL CALL Mayor Hubbard called the Special Meeting of the City Council to order at 5:00 p.m. at Town Hall. Present: Mayor Hubbard and Councilmembers Casey, Dauber, Johnson and Siegel Absent: None Staff: City Manager/City Engineer Jeff Peterson and City Clerk Pat Dowd Press: None 2. CLOSED SESSION: PERSONNEL: PURSUANT TO GOVERNMENT CODE SECTION 54957.6 -- Public Employee Performance Evaluation — City Manager The City Council adjourned to a Closed Session on Personnel at 5:00 p.m. and reconvened at 6:05 p.m. PRESENTATIONS FROM THE FLOOR ADJOURNMENT There being no further new or old business to discuss, the City Council Meeting was adjourned at 6:05 p.m. Racnectfull}�submitted, Patricia Dowd City Clerk The minutes of the January 29, 1997 Special City Council Meeting were approved at the February 5, 1997 City Council Meeting. January 29, 1997 Special City Council Meeting Minutes of an Adjourned Regular Meeting January 29, 1997 Town of Los Altos Hills City Council and Planning Commission Meeting Wednesday, January 29,1997,6:00 P.M. Council Chambers, 26379 Fremont Road CALL TO ORDER AND ROLL CALL Mayor Hubbard called the Adjourned Regular Meeting of the City Council and Planning Commission to order at 6:15 p.m. in the Council Chambers at Town Hall. Present: Mayor Hubbard and Councilmembers Casey, Dauber, Johnson and Siegel Planning Commissioners Cheng, Doran, Finn, Gottlieb, Jinkerson, Schreiner and Stutz ` Staff: City Manager/City Engineer Jeff Peterson, City Attorney ` Sandy Sloan, Planning Director Curtis Williams, Assistant Engineer Sheryl Proft, Assistant Planner Suzanne Davis, Planning Technician Susan Manca and City Clerk Pat Dowd Press: Clyde Noel, Los Altos Town Crier 2. INTENT AND PURPOSE OF SITE DEVELOPMENT REVIEW The Planning Director noted that staff provided the technical review of projects and also identified possible areas of concern such as grading, bulk. He further commented that this technical review was done uniformly and consistently. Any discretionary decisions were recommended by the Planning Commission and concurred with by the Council. A discussion followed on what the Town's purpose was in regulating and reviewing house plans? Casey stated everyone should be treated fairly. Everyone should be required to meet the Town's Codes but there should be no subjective decisions made. If one did not meet the codes, they should have to apply for a variance. She further believed if Council thought the ordinances were not strict enough they should be changed. Casey also strongly supported the Town doing another questionnaire such as on the one done in 1989. She believed it was important to get the input from residents t on such issues as ordinance changes, allowed development, etc. Schreiner stated that i/ January 29, 1997 Adjourned City Council Meeting the intent of site development review was to preserve open space and privacy and the `/ codes and regulations provided the tools and techniques to accomplish this. Siegel also commented that the ordinances allowed for some discretion; each lot was different and certain decisions depended on the site. The process was also discussed. In particular those attending addressed the issue of how long it took an applicant to complete the process. Staff noted that it greatly depended on what stage they started the project. Obviously those farther along with plans and those who were more familiar with the regulations went more quickly. The average time was four months. Cheng commented that many applicants did not understand that if one met the ordinances they still might not get an approved project. It also depended on input from neighbors. Council and Commissioners discussed the use of the word 'maximums' in the Town's Codes. Some believed this was amount allowed and thus should be given to the applicants if they wanted it. It should not be left to the Town to decide if it was appropriate or not. Others believed that this meant that lower amounts of development for example could be approved as more appropriate for a particular lot. The issue of neighbor input and the level at which it should or should not impact a project was discussed. The City Attorney did note that decisions concerning a project were determined by the land not the owner. 3. SITE DEVELOPMENT/DESIGN REVIEW A. Site Development review - grading, siting, driveways, landscaping, outdoor lighting, etc. B. Design review - height, mass, color, materials, architectural features (windows, eaves, skylights, etc.) C. Reliance on Codes and Design Guidelines D. Visibility of Structures On the subject of Site Development/ Design Review two areas were addressed. Site Development Review included such issues as grading and drainage, building siting and ridgeline preservation, driveways, pathways, landscaping and outdoor lighting. These issues were covered in the Town's Code. Council also reviewed the Site Development Policy adopted in 1989. Design Review was more subjective and included colors and materials, height, windows, eaves, skylights, architectural features, second story setbacks and style of residence. These issues were addressed in the Design Guidelines Booklet. Several suggestions were made and agreed upon toward making the process less confusing for applicants. These suggestions included: 1) including a statement at the front of an applicant's project worksheet which advised them that ordinance numbers were 'maximums' and could be changed by the Planning Commission. To this end the wording'maximums' and'minimums' needed to be modified. This terminology seemed to be causing quite a bit of confusion. This new wording would be prepared by staff and returned to Council for approval.; 2) identify why changes to January 29, 1997 Adjourned City Council Meeting projects were made and make this quite clear to the applicants so they understood why their development area, floor area, etc. was reduced; 3) review Design Guidelines for possible changes, updates, etc.; and 4) direct the Planning Director to prepare a design guideline on skylights. Those present discussed the use of windows; indoor and outdoor lighting and its impact on the neighbors; the current requirement for a mitigation landscape plan to be filed with application; and the standard condition of approval concerning skylights. Dauber suggested the question should be asked: "Does the house stand alone if the proposed landscaping is not completed?' On the subject of visibility it was noted that houses will always be visible from somewhere but also that the houses should fit into the lot and flow with the land. PASSED BY CONSENSUS: Agreed that if a lot was highly visible and impacted the neighbors, the following design review issues were deemed important to address: colors and materials, height, windows, eaves, skylights, architectual features and second story setbacks. If the lot was not highly visible and did not impact the neighbors, these issues would be determined not to be critical. PASSED BY CONSENSUS: To direct staff to review the 1989 Site Development Policy and to bring back an updated and revised copy for Council approval. Staff raised the issue of drainage and recommended that drainage issues be referred to staff in the conditions of approval. There were so many factors and each site was so different that it was not efficient for Planning Commissioners or Councilmembers to attempt to address drainage issues during their discussions. It would be better if they brought up areas of particular concern for staff to look at and for the staff to work with the applicant. It was agreed, however, that the staff reports would include information on how the drainage issues were being addressed so that this information would be available for the public as well as for the applicant. 4. TOPICS FOR FUTURE DISCUSSION A. Ordinance Revisions and Policies - Process B. Training The Planning Director noted that such training included the upcoming Planning Commissioners Institute which a few of the commissioners planned to attend. C. Visual aids and other resources The Planning Director commented that staff was open to suggestions on ways to [ present their reports, such as the use of more graphics. One recommendation was to i/ January 29, 1997 Adjourned City Council Meeting put copies of the plans under discussion in the Council Chambers so the public could follow the discussions more clearly. D. Other A suggestion was made that applicants use models of their projects. While it was agreed that models helped visualize the project, they were also quite expensive. 3. PRESENTATIONS FROM THE FLOOR Peggy Esber,13430 Country Way, and Chris Bateman, 12321 Gigli Court, addressed the Council on the issue of Home To School Busing in the Palo Alto School District. The District had advised the participants that this program needed to be fully funded and presently was short about $5,000. Many parents depended on this program even though it was expensive and the bus trip could be quite lengthy for some students (7:00 a.m. pickup with a 4:00 p.m. drop off). At this time they were asking Council to be aware of possible alternatives and options to this program when dealing with the various governmental agencies. They would welcome any and all suggestions and recommendations. Council did comment on the use of public buses as one alternative. 4. ADTOURNMENT 4 There being no further new or old business to discuss, the City Council Meeting was adjourned at 9:05 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Patricia Dowd City Clerk The minutes of the January 29, 1997 Adjourned Regular City Council Meeting were approved at the February 5,1997 Regular City Council Meeting. January 29, 1997 Adjourned City Council Meeting