Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout10/29/1997Minutes of an Adjourned Regular Meeting October 29, 1997 Town of Los Altos Hills City Council and Planning Commission Adjourned Regular Meeting Wednesday, October 29, 1997, 6:00 P.M. Council Chambers, 26379 Fremont Road A. Call To Order and Roll Call Mayor Casey called the Adjourned Regular Meeting of the City Council and Planning Commission to order at 6:00 p.m. in the Council Chambers at Town Hall. Present: Mayor Casey and Councilmembers Dauber, Hubbard, Johnson B. Scope of Planning Commission Review (Level of Detail): %W 1. Height of Residence 2. Height of Entry 3. Architectural Features (chimneys, towers) 4. Skylights and Windows Council discussed the level of Planning Commission review on projects. Dauber commented that at an earlier Joint Meeting the issue of height had been addressed so she did not believe there should be any confusion on that issue. Casey however felt that the Planning Commission was not following this guideline. She further noted that applicants were adding conditions to projects which they did not even wantjust so they would have something to give up on a project when asked. Siegel recommended builders and neighbors negotiate areas of concerns. The Council was not in the design business. He further commented that siting of houses was very important and projects on major streets in Town were of more concern due to high visibility. Hubbard expressed concerns about the tendency to appeal projects and hoped they could be avoided if at all possible. Schreiner believed part of the problem was applicants maxing out their projects. Siting did not always address bulk issues. The Commission actually had few tools to mitigate projects and lessen their impact on neighbors. Gottlieb concurred that the Commission was trying to balance the ordinances with the tools available. Jinkerson stated that he thought the Planning Commission was working quite well together. Bill Hofrng, 26045 Torello Lane, commented that oftentimes applicants felt ambushed at the Planning Commission Meeting when they heard issues that had not been raised before. October 29, 1997 Adjourned Regular City Council Meeting 1 and Siegel Staff: Planning Director Curtis Williams, Assistant Planner Suzanne Davis and City Clerk Pat Dowd Press: Carol Tiegs, Los Altos Town Crier Planning Chairman Carol Gottlieb and Commissioners Cheng, Jinkerson, Commission: Schreiner and Stutz B. Scope of Planning Commission Review (Level of Detail): %W 1. Height of Residence 2. Height of Entry 3. Architectural Features (chimneys, towers) 4. Skylights and Windows Council discussed the level of Planning Commission review on projects. Dauber commented that at an earlier Joint Meeting the issue of height had been addressed so she did not believe there should be any confusion on that issue. Casey however felt that the Planning Commission was not following this guideline. She further noted that applicants were adding conditions to projects which they did not even wantjust so they would have something to give up on a project when asked. Siegel recommended builders and neighbors negotiate areas of concerns. The Council was not in the design business. He further commented that siting of houses was very important and projects on major streets in Town were of more concern due to high visibility. Hubbard expressed concerns about the tendency to appeal projects and hoped they could be avoided if at all possible. Schreiner believed part of the problem was applicants maxing out their projects. Siting did not always address bulk issues. The Commission actually had few tools to mitigate projects and lessen their impact on neighbors. Gottlieb concurred that the Commission was trying to balance the ordinances with the tools available. Jinkerson stated that he thought the Planning Commission was working quite well together. Bill Hofrng, 26045 Torello Lane, commented that oftentimes applicants felt ambushed at the Planning Commission Meeting when they heard issues that had not been raised before. October 29, 1997 Adjourned Regular City Council Meeting 1 Art Keyes, Menlo Park, and Bill Maston, Mountain View (both architects) noted that the staff reports for projects were not available until the Friday before the meeting. They felt this did not allow enough time for review and comment and recommended changing the calendar to allow sending staff reports out a week ahead. Mr. Marton also suggested a second pre -planning meeting for projects. Valerie and Tim Chown, 13822 Page Mill Road, commented that it was also important to allow the neighbors enough time to comment on projects. Shabinam Jain, Los Altos, believed it was a subjective process and one that was not clearly defined. She further commented that decisions by the Town seemed to be made after a lot of earlier decisions had been made on a project. She recommended a more objective process be established. It was agreed that the Planning Director would prepare a report for Council on the comments and suggestions made and what impact they would have on applicants, staff, etc. C. Sensitivity to and Interaction with Applicants at Meetings Casey believed that applicants were emotionally involved with their projects and felt they were being talked down to by the Planning Commission. Dauber noted that she had received calls from applicants before they were heard by the Planning Commission. She believed the policy should be reaffirmed that Councilmembers should not discuss a project before it went to the Planning Commission. Schreiner stated that she had recently listened to the tapes of several Planning Commission Meetings. She believed they were a detailed and thorough Commission and were doing a good job of carrying out the Town's codes and intent of the General Plan. Their decisions were based on this and not on not trying to help applicants. Cheng stated that applicants do not realize that they can not necessarily have the maximums allowed on their lots and then confusion follows. She knew this could result in emotional times and recommended that applicants be treated as the Commissioner and Councilmembers would want to be treated if they were the applicants. Bob Garrow, 13914 Mir Mirou, did not think the Planning Commission nor the Council had any business telling residents how to run their lives. He also commented that he had been a resident for fifteen years and there seemed to be no consideration of old and new. He suggested it was time to ask the residents what they wanted now as opposed to regulations made years ago. Valerie Chown, 13822 Page Mill Road, commented that existing residences could be dream homes too. She also noted that oftentimes after a public hearing was closed it was frustrating not being able to comment on statements that were made after the hearing was closed. Mrs. Jain, Los Altos, believed applicants should be able to talk to Planning Commissioners and Councilmembers about applications. Sharyn Brown, 27673 Lupine, stated that the residents relied on the Planning Commissioners and Councilmembers to protect the neighbors. October 29, 1997 Adjourned Regular City Council Meeting 2 Katherine Alexander, asked why the Town authorities wanted the Town to be dark and not allow for more lighting. She thought it was unsafe and made it very difficult for anyone to find your home. She thought people should be able to build their dream homes. George Alexander, referred to the Town's General Plan and suggested that this plan which affected all residents had not been reviewed by the residents. He believed it was time for public input on the General Plan. Jim Steiner, 14195 Wild Plum, supported the rural environment of the Town and its lack of street lights. He enjoyed the quaint, country environment. Ramona Chown, 13822 Page Mill Road, agreed with Mr. Steiner about the rural environment and also concurred with the comments made that the Commissioners and Councilmembers were responsible for protecting the residents. Jim Low, stated that he moved to Los Altos Hills because of the school district, the large lots, less government and because it was a safe area. He hardly believed with all of the very large homes that one could still consider Los Altos Hills rural. Donna Gorzynski, 12400 Casa Mia Way, recommended sending out a survey to get the residents input of these issues. D. Policy Issues 1. Backup/turnaround areas �r 2. Secondary dwellings - basements, height, driveway access, garages, patios 3. Basement definition - backfilling, daylighting, lightwells and stairways, patios 4. Definitions of "three story facade" and "single story" 5. Development on and definition of"ridgelines" 6. "Challenged" lots - how to address them early in process 7. Requiring two car garages 8. Counting carports as floor area 9. Height measurement re: basements, pad/crawl space 10. Enforcement of conditions of approval 11. More strict application of Design Guidelines to protect "rural" character 12. Town removal of trees in right-of-way 13. Planting in road right-of-way To avoid any confusion about the recent Council decision on backup/turnaround areas, it was agreed the Planning Director would prepare a report including design drawings. Dauber suggested that Fire Department requirements could be grass crete. Bill Maston, architect, commented that turnaround areas were affecting development levels as the requirement used to be 12' rather than 14'. Tim Chown, 13822 Page Mill Road, did not understand why anyone would have to build in setbacks unless they were trying to build the largest possible house. October 29, 1997 Adjourned Regular City Council Meeting 3 Sandra Humphries, 26238 Fremont Road, commented that the consensus voiced at the October 15" Council Meeting did not represent the concerns of the Town. On the subject of secondary dwellings, the Planning Director asked if basements and garages should be included in the 1,000 square foot limit for secondary dwellings? Schreiner noted that a key part of the Town's Housing Element was using secondary dwellings as affordable housing. If the Town allowed expansion of the secondary dwellings would we be negating their use as affordable housing? In addition she asked if the Town would be violating its zoning? Stutz supported separate garages. She noted that secondary dwellings could not have separate driveways. Dauber stated that secondary dwellings should look like they are part of the main dwellings. Hubbard supported basements. Siegel noted that the Town did promote secondary dwellings. He believed that if basements were allowed they should count as floor area to prevent large secondary dwellings. Casey did not support limiting the height of secondary dwellings nor limiting their having basements. Siegel and Hubbard supported strict interpretations of the basement definition. Dauber commented that basements allowed for free floor area but reduced the profile of a house. Stutz recommended the Town get an expert opinion on lightwells as the designers were getting quite creative. PASSED BY CONSENSUS: Basements need to be below finished grade but not below existing grade. Concerning `three story facade' and `single story', it was agreed stepping down needed to be redefined and included in the design guidelines. As it had been originally planned that this meeting would be held for three hours only, Council agreed to continue the remaining items for discussion to a future Joint Meeting. Suggested dates for this meeting would be made at the November 5" City Council Meeting and given to Planning Commission at their next meeting. E. Presentations from the Floor F. Adiournment 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 October 29, 1997 Adjourned Regular Meeting were approved at the November 19, 1997 City Council Meeting. October 29, 1997 Adjoumed Regular City Council Meeting 4