Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout06/17/1992 Minutes of a Regular Meeting June 17, 1992 Town of Los Altos Hills City Council Meeting Wednesday,June 17, 1992,6:00 p.m. Council Chambers,26379 Fremont Road 1. CALL TO ORDER, ROLL CALL, AND PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE Mayor Hubbard called the Regular Meeting of the City Council to order at 6:05 p.m. in the Council Chambers at Town Hall. He announced that the meeting would be adjourned in memory of Wes Parmett, the City Treasurer's son,who had recently passed away. Present: Mayor Hubbard and Councilmembers Siegel,Tryon,Johnson, and Casey (arrived 7:00 p.m.) Absent: None !'' Staff: City Manager Les Jones,II, City Attorney Sandy Sloan Town Planner Linda Niles, Director of Public Works Jeff Peterson Press: None 1.A CLOSED SESSION: PERSONNEL: (PURSUANT TO GOVERNMENT CODE SECTION 54957.6) The City Council adjourned to a Closed Session for purposes of personnel at 6:05 p.m. and reconvened at 6:30 p.m. 2. APPOINTMENTS AND PRESENTATIONS 2.1 PRESENTATION BY THE TRAFFIC AUTHORITY ON A MEASURE A UPDATE AND STRATEGIC PLAN ASSUMPTIONS Joel Maniaci, Deputy Director for Projects Management,reported to Council on the Strategic Plan Assumptions for the Traffic Authority and also presented an update on the Measure A Program. �/ JUNE 17,1992 -1- 3. PLANNING COMMISSION REPORT Planning Commissioner reported on the conclusion of the planning permit for the Morley Young residence. She described the difficulties the Commission had in accepting the application but in the end reported that the permit was granted by a vote of 3 to 2. She also reported the Planning Commission will not be meeting during the month of August,but a quorum would be available if needed. 4. CONSENT CALENDAR MOTION SECONDED AND CARRIED—Moved by Tryon, seconded by Hubbard, and passed unanimously by all members present to approve the Consent Calendar, specifically: 4.1 APPROVED MINUTES: JUNE 3, 1992 4.2 AWARDED CERTIFICATES OF APPRECIATION TO THE MEMBERS OF THE COMMUNITY RELATIONS COMMITTEE 4.3 ISSUED PROCLAMATION SUPPORTING THE VALUABLE SERVICES PROVIDED TO THE COMMUNITY BY THE ASIAN AMERICANS FOR COMMUNITY INVOLVEMENT 4.4 DENIED CLAIM: RONALD BEESON 4.5 SET THE TIME AND PLACE OF A PUBLIC HEARING TO CONSIDER ALL OBJECTIONS OR PROTESTS TO THE PROPOSED ADOPTION OF THE PALO ALTO SEWER SERVICE CHARGE FINAL REPORT-Reso#17-92. 4.6 SET THE TIME AND PLACE OF A PUBLIC HEARING TO CONSIDER ADOPTION OF A PROPOSED TOWN BUDGET FOR THE FISCAL YEAR 1992-93-Reso#18-92. 4.7 DECIDED TO REVIEW THE FOLLOWING PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION AT ITS MEETING ON JUNE 10, 1992: 4.7A LANDS OF YOUNG, 27840 SADDLE COURT: REQUEST FOR A SITE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT FOR A NEW RESIDENCE 4.8 APPROVED THIRD AMENDMENT TO AGREEMENT WITH WILSEY AND HAM FOR ENGINEERING SERVICES-Reso#19-92. 411/ 4.9 APPROVED ADDENDUM TO AGREEMENT FOR CONTRACT MAINTENANCE SERVICES,COLLECTION SYSTEMS MAINTENANCE SERVICE (CSMS)-Reso#20-92. JUNE 17,1992 -2- 4.10 APPROVED FIRST AMENDMENT TO THE AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE TOWN AND JANICE BOHMAN-Reso#21-92. 5. PRESENTATIONS FROM THE FLOOR There were no presentations from the floor. 6. PUBLIC HEARINGS 6.1 REQUEST FOR APPROVAL-SITE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT FOR A NEW RESIDENCE AND SWIMMING POOL-LANDS OF MOORING,13791 LA PALOMA(CONTINUED FROM JUNE 3, 1992 COUNCIL MEETING) Johnson noted he had not been present at the June 3, 1992 meeting but had listened to the tapes of the meeting to bring himself up-to-date and the City Attorney had advised him he was "reconstituted." David Mooring (Applicant), 13791 La Paloma Road used overheads to compare his proposed development project with others in the area and expressed confusion and dissatisfaction with the findings outlined in the staff report. In particular he referred to Article 10-2.701 and stated that his proposed house would not obscure any views except what would be in his own back yard. He said he was puzzled by the finding of Article 10-2.702(a) in that there had been no contrary discussions about runoff up to this point and he believed his project would, in fact, minimize runoff. He could not understand what scenic views would be impaired from off the site as stated in the findings,nor why his project would be any different than a single story house that is 24.5 feet tall and 80 feet from the property line. In summary,Mr. Mooring stated he felt he had been extremely cooperative for the past 1.5 years and had done what he was told he could do with the lot he purchased. He expressed his surprise and dissatisfaction once again with the decision of staff and the change of opinions. John Glathe, 13801 La Paloma Road said he read the staff report and endorsed the findings. He didn't think it proper for Mr. Mooring to compare his proposed residence with other houses in the area because of the shape of his lot,which is long and narrow. He said open space was of particular concern and even the height of 24.5 feet for a one-story home,he thought too high. The fact that this issue had been continued a number of times,Mr. Glathe thought pointed out that there have always been reservations about this proposed development. Mr. Glathe then read a letter from John Treichler who could not attend the meeting. c111, JUNE 17,1992 -3- John Treichler, 12692 Roble Veneno Lane stated in his letter that he believed Mr. Mooring had not changed anything significant about this planned development since it was first submitted last year. He felt the proposed house was just as big,just as high, and positioned essentially the same as in the original submission. He also commended the Planning Commission and Town Council for their consistency in their view that their job is to look beyond the detailed specifications and rules and watch out for the neighborhood of the Town as a whole. Mr. Treichler urged the Council to resist Mr. Mooring's tactic of"changing little and raving much" and to make whatever is determined to be the right global decision. Carol Seeds, 13801 La Paloma Road expressed her opposition to the project, especially in terms of bulk. She said the bulk,which includes the height, and the volume of the proposed house on the narrow and open lot, would look very large,inappropriate,out of scale, and out of character. She felt the proposed house did not maintain a rural and open affect and would stick out and be obtrusive. Ms. Seeds was particularly concerned about the height of the roof. She compared the project to the development of the Nelson property where the same issues and considerations had been discussed and modifications made. In that case, she said, the house was set back and the roof line lowered so that it didn't look so obtrusive,it wasn't obstructing the view, and it had a more rural 4 look, all of which combined made the house fit into the area. Ms. Seeds concluded by stating her concerns about Mr. Mooring comparing his proposed project to Mr. Glathe's house, as the Glathe house is 1800 sq. ft. and the proposed Mooring house is 6000 sq. ft.. She urged the Council to look at that comparison. Town Planner noted that the previous application for this project was denied without prejudice by the Council on November 6, 1991 and that this was a new application and a new submittal. The plan sheets submitted were nine pages and included no landscape plans. She said the applicant reviewed other options with her,but did not change the height of the proposed house because he felt the roof pitch was appropriate. He also indicated he would not be modifying his house in any way and would prefer that Council review the findings. She told the Council that the plan submitted at this meeting was substantially the same plan that was previously denied. Johnson expressed his concern that the applicant had not staked out story poles as requested at the last meeting. He said when he visited the property the corners of the building were staked out, but the house was not properly story poled and taped to show the outline of the roof to give the viewer an idea of how the bulk of the house would appear from hir the street. JUNE 17,1992 -4- Tryon also expressed her dissatisfaction that the property had not been properly staked to show the mass or bulk of the proposed home. She said she thought Council had been extremely patient in this case and had gone over every detail carefully to give the applicant every opportunity to fit his project in with the neighborhood and to accomplish the goals of the General Plan and the Town's Ordinances. She felt the applicant had ignored Council's main concerns,especially the concentration of bulk and mass of the proposed house and the siting of it. Siegel said he believed the Council had adequately transmitted to Mr. Mooring the goal of the Council in its effort to try to keep a certain section of La Paloma as open a thoroughfare as possible. He said Mr. Mooring had a choice of moving the two-story house as far back as possible,keeping the openness in the front yard,or lowering the house to one-story and having it closer to La Paloma and the applicant decided not to do either. He concluded by saying other lots on La Paloma that are long and narrow have taken advantage of similar lot opportunities and constraints and have enhanced,rather than impaired, the scenic corridor of the La Paloma basin. Regarding Mr. Mooring's concerns about change in staff and staff views,Councilmember Siegel said that this Council was the deciding body and he felt the Council had been consistent in its actions. Hubbard agreed with Councilmembers' concerns about bulk and location, which he said they had expressed to Mr. Mooring time and time again. He said if Mr. Mooring had worked with staff, as suggested, and made the modifications requested,he might have come up with an acceptable plan,but the original proposal is the one that keeps coming before the Council. Hubbard felt the size of the proposed structure would dominate the surrounding area and because of its location and its visibility in an open corridor,people driving through the area would be negatively impacted. MOTION SECONDED AND CARRIED—Moved by Tryon, seconded by Hubbard and passed by the following roll call vote to deny the requested site development permit and adopt the attached findings supporting the denial of the application for site development permit. AYES: Mayor Hubbard,Councilmembers Tryon,Johnson,Siegel NOES: Councilmember Casey ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: None JUNE 17, 1992 -5' 6.2 REQUEST FOR APPROVAL-CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT ` FOR AN EXISTING COMMERCIAL STABLE-LANDS OF COLE, 23219 RAVENSBURY Town Planner summarized the staff report and informed Council that staff and the Planning Commission recommend approval of the Conditional Use Permit subject to the findings sited in the staff report. Siegel said the Council should be careful in using the term remove the manure from the site weekly. The issue is,he said,storage of manure on the property for a specified amount of time. He provided the Council with an amendment to Condition #5 and an additional Condition#10. Christine Cole (Applicant),Full House Farm,23219 Ravensbury Avenue read a summary she prepared after reading the Planning Commission minutes of May 27, 1992. Her written statement offered additional information she thought would be helpful: (1) Full House currently has 14 horses on the property who are not confined to stalls,but allowed to move freely on approximately three acres; (2)Full House offers mostly private instruction and currently offers 53 private lessons,4 semi-private lessons, and about 2-3 group lessons each week and most birthday parties are booked on the weekends; (3)Lessons take place between 8:30 am and 9:00 pm during the summer, with a break for the horses to eat between 4:00 pm and 5:30 pm; (4) A few additional horses would assist �r in lightening the load of the existing horses,which is heavy especially in the summer; (5) The proposed shed made entirely of wood would be for a new equipment room,offering a safer route for children who are grooming; (6)Parking is not and never has been a problem; (7) Full House neighbors are screened from noise and odor by the natural vegetation, and naturally steep slope of the land on and around the Farm; (8) Full House has researched ways to reduce the odor coming from the facility, as evidenced by the findings outlined in a letter from Matt Chaney of Jones-Hamilton Company; and (9) Full House is in favor of regular inspections and will continue to conform with the Town's standards, offering a quality service for the Town. Mrs. Cole proceeded to read a proposal for the removal of manure from Full House Farm,prepared at the request of Councilmember Siegel. The proposal stated that with the exception of a 10' x 6' compost pile for Full House use, 100% of the manure would be removed on a weekly basis. As of July 1, 1992, Full House Farm would begin to remove the small amount that is remaining on the property and a stock pile for Farm use only would be saved for an estimated 6-8 weeks. The stock pile would be located to the far left of the vegetable garden and would not be available to the public. Following the establishment of the stock pile, 100% of the manure would be systematically removed on a weekly basis. Additionally,Mrs. Cole offered a copy of the Full House Manual to the JUNE 17,1992 -6- Council for their review outlining the systems and guidelines for running the Farm. 41/ Mrs. Cole specified that she would prefer a 10-year Use Permit,in light of the fact that she would be subjected to routine compliance inspections and could have the permit revoked at any time for non-compliance. Also she would like the number of horses increased to 20. She stated that if she was removing 100% of the manure,20 horses vs. 16 horses in that respect would make no difference; however, the additional 6 horses, rather than 2 horses,would help lessen the heavy load of the existing horses. Scott Overstreet, 23200 Encinal Court said he has lived adjacent to the Cole property for 15 years and has been in a position to watch the Cole operation. He strongly stated that he had not experienced odors coming from the property and expressed his respect and admiration for the sanitary way in which Full House Farm operates. He said he has seen the daily manure clean-up procedures and has not seen manure piles standing for any unreasonable length of time. John Como,23225 Ravensbury said he has lived adjacent to and above the Cole property for ten years. He expressed his surprise in the attention given to the Use Permit for the Cole property,especially since there were so many in favor of the project vs.one complaint. He said he and his family spend a lot of time outside and have never experienced an odor problem coming from the Cole property. Goodwin B. Steinberg, 10300 West Loyola stated he was not against the Full House Farm operation per se,but the manner in which it has changed over the years. Over time the property changed from a family facility to a growing commercial operation without going through the required City process and this was a concern to him. He also said there were problems of odor as the operation grew. Mr. Steinberg expressed his disappointment in the way the Planning Commission responded to his concerns and the way in which they handled the issue in general. He expressed his confusion on why the number of horses have fluctuated from the existing 14 horses to 16 and then to 20. When questioned by Councilmember Casey,however,Mr. Steinberg said he had no problem with increasing the amount of horses,given the fact that Mrs. Cole stated she would remove 100% of the manure. He said he wanted to see the operation get into some kind of responsible control and to have the Town review and check it. Mr. Steinberg said his main concern was the systematic removal of the manure pile. Bob Stutz,25310 Elena said he saw no reason why Mrs. Cole couldn't have up C to 24 horses on the property as long as the pick up of the manure was handled properly. JUNE 17,1992 -7- Nan Como, 23225 Ravensbury requested that Mrs. Cole's permit be valid for ten years,in view of the compliance inspections that would be taking place. Siegel said that revoking a Conditional Use Permit was not an easy process. He said he believed five years was a reasonable amount of time to review an operation,since the Use Permit runs with the land and then it becomes an ownership right of the property. Hubbard questioned whether an annual business license and associated inspection was required for an operation of this type and asked whether the City Manager had the authority to deny renewal of the license. Town Planner said there is a requirement for the commercial stable which says each application for license shall be made to the Town and shall be accompanied by a required fee. It then allows for inspection of compliance by the City Manager who has the authority to deny renewal. Tryon stated that it would be much easier for an operator of a commercial stable to come before the Council once every five years and make a one- evening presentation stating that everything is going as planned and there have been no problems or complaints. Going through a procedure where the City Manager removes a business license could result in protests and business difficulties placed on the owner. The Council fir procedure for removing the Conditional Use Permit, which goes with the land,becomes extremely complex. City Attorney stated in a response to Councilmember Casey's query,that Council could vote to revoke a permit when it comes up for compliance, but that a public hearing would have to be held and Council would have to make specific findings that the applicant was not complying with the conditions of the permit or that the use was a threat to public health, safety or welfare. Johnson stated he thought five years was reasonable,but that ten years would be nice. He said he believed that when this Use Permit came up for review in five years, the operation will already be existing, the Council will know if it has a good track record,and the representative from Full House Farm will experience a very straight forward procedure to get the Permit extended. Siegel told the Council of the rationale for amending Condition #5 and adding a summer trial basis. He said that a 40% increase in the number of horses that exist now, and a new requirement that all of the manure will be removed every week, and limiting the requirement to the summer months, is an attempt to see whether it works and whether Mrs. Cole can find somebody to take the manure away every week. This would be a way to ease the increase in the number of horses because the more JUNE 17, 1992 -8- horses, the more manure. Two more horses were added by his proposal, bringing the total to 16, up to November 1, which would reduce the stress put on the workload of the existing horses during the summer months. Mr. Steinberg said he thought the numbers and the way Councilmember Siegel's amendments were written were fine. He suggested that if Mrs. Cole temporarily needed four additional horses for the summer workload, the Council could add an additional clause. Mrs. Cole addressed the subject of the number of horses. She said she thought the issue regarding the complaint was the odor. If the manure was the cause of the odor and she was willing to have 100% of the manure removed, she didn't understand why the number of horses should be an issue. She again stated she was willing to take the responsibility both in dollars and labor for removing 100% of the manure on a weekly basis,no matter how many horses are boarded. Also Mrs. Cole thought the suggestion of having four additional horses just for the summer months was totally unreasonable, as she saw no solution as to disposing of the horses at the end of the summer months. Full House, she said, has a waiting list for students who wish to take lessons and for those who wish to board their horses on the property,but because she is already overworking the horses, she has to turn some of these people away, and thus, the reason for asking for additional horses. Addressing the issue of the review period,Mrs. Cole said she would like 10 years,rather than 5 years because of the time and costs involved during this review process. She said she has spent$1000 to date in order to go through this permit process,something she could not afford to do every five years. In response to Mayor Hubbard's questioning,Mrs. Cole said she was in agreement with the addition of Condition #10. She did not agree, however, with the amendment of Condition #5 since it stated that no more than 16 horses may be boarded until November 1. After November the horse use is cut back. She told Council that the existing horses are now working to their maximum, as school is out and more children are coming to Full House. Town Planner told the Council that if the Permit was limited to five years, at the end of that time period Mrs.Cole would be required to go through a new permit application again. However, if it was the intent of the Council to simply re-review the Permit, the conditions should be reworded to express that intent. Diana Moos,228 Mountain View Avenue,Mountain View works at Full House Farm and said she has worked at many stables. She commended JUNE 17,1992 -9- Mrs. Cole for the cleanliness of her operation and the way in which she systematically removes manure from the premises on a weekly basis. 41, Tryon said she wouldn't have a problem with either Mrs. Cole's proposal to remove 100% of the manure or Councilmember Siegel's suggestion of adding Condition #10,but eliminating the words May through October. Johnson said he would not vote for a motion that did not give Full House Farm 20 horses. He said it was obvious that the applicant understood the main problem concerning this issue was the odor coming from the horse manure and that if the applicant undertook her proposed program to remove 100% of the manure successfully,then the number of horses she had wouldn't matter. He also said he thought Condition #10 should remove the reference to the months of May through October and he believed there would not be an odor problem when it was raining. Casey said she thought the solution would be to eliminate amendment of Condition #5 and add Condition #10,which would make sure the manure would be removed and inspected on a regular basis. She also expressed concern that Council may be imposing a condition that was impossible to keep in asking the owner to remove the manure during the wet and rainy months. Hubbard, Casey,and Johnson questioned whether requiring record keeping of the manure removal was an unnecessary requirement. Siegel said the record keeping was the one way the City Manager could determine whether the applicant was in compliance with the Use Permit. Then if a complaint came in about odor, the records would show the time of week it was removed. He recommended the manure be removed by Friday because people tend to be outdoors during the weekends. He said that compliance could not be verified without maintaining records. MOTION SECONDED AND CARRIED—Moved by Casey, seconded by Johnson,and passed by the following roll call vote to approve the requested Conditional Use Permit as recommended by the Planning Commission with the following exceptions to the findings: (1) Add Condition 10 to read: In order to control odor both on and off the property,all manure shall be removed from the property each week. No amount of manure shall be stored on the property longer than one week except a small amount for use on a garden and orchard. The owner shall maintain a record,open to Town inspection,showing the date, the amount of manure removed from the property, and the person removing it. (2) Delete Condition #8. (3) Amend Condition #1 to read: This use permit is granted for five (5) years, to expire on June 17, 1997,provided that the property owner may apply for an extension of the permit for an additional five (5)years. The application for extension must be made at (lir least six (6) months prior to the expiration date and no fee shall be charged for such application. The Town Planner may grant the five (5)year extension JUNE 17,1992 -10- subject to the same conditions herein without a hearing,provided that if the applicant or any affected party requests any modification or the revocation of the permit or if the Town Planner determines that changed circumstances with regard to the use,surrounding uses or Town standards exist, noticed public hearings shall be held on the extension by the Planning Commission and City Council, in accordance with Section 10-1.1105 and the use permit may be granted,denied,or modified in accordance with Sections 10-1.1107 and 10-1.1107(1). AYES: Mayor Hubbard,Coundlmembers Tryon, Casey,Johnson, Siegel NOES: None ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: None Councilmember Casey left at 9:35 p.m. 6.3 REQUEST FOR APPROVAL-SITE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT FOR A MAJOR ADDITION,CARPORT,WALKWAY, DECK, AND VARIANCE TO EXCEED MAXIMUM FLOOR AREA AND MAXIMUM DEVELOPMENT AREA-LANDS OF CLASQUIN/HARSLEM, 13641 PASEO DEL ROBEL E Town Planner stated the Planning Commission reviewed this item at their �y meeting of May 27, 1992 and forwarded the application to the City Council with a denial,but with the request that Council also review the project to see if they could state adequate findings for approval. She stated the Planning Commission could not find that there were unique circumstances that would allow them to grant the variance to exceed MFA,but they were supportive of the request to exceed MDA because of the current safety problems caused by the steep driveway and limited parking and turn around area.The Planning Commission had a concern for the first finding because there was confusion with the numbers of the average sized homes in the area. The original staff report indicated the average sized home was 4500 to 5000 sq. ft. and this project was proposing about 5600 sq. ft. At the Planning Commission meeting it was noted that there are some houses in the area that are actually 8000 sq. ft., so a reasonable average number would be 4500 to 6000 sq. ft. Tryon expressed concern in the language of Finding #1 where it states: "...the house was constructed under previous floor area and development standards." She questioned whether this statement should be included since it would relate to every house that was built before the current zoning requirements. She said she would feel uncomfortable including language that was not restricted to the lot itself. JUNE 17,1992 -11- Town Planner told the Council that it may be appropriate to include the discussion that currently the floor area is counted, although not being used as living area, therefore the existing floor area on the site is only being requested to be modified by 134 sq. ft. Johnson explained how he interpreted the floor area and development table in the Planning Commission report. He said if the maximum floor area allowed was 4850 sq. ft. and the existing floor area was 5162, the applicant was already 312 sq. ft. over the MFA. Further, they were asking for an additional 478 sq. ft.,bringing the total to 5640 and making the proposed addition 790 sq. ft.over the MFA. Eric Harslem (Co-Applicant), 13641 Paseo del Roble through the use of overheads showed the existing house to be 2970 sq. ft. with a 576 square foot two-car garage. The under-floor area of approximately 2000 sq. ft. counts as MFA at present,but is not developed as living area. The proposal is to develop 1600 sq. ft. of living area directly under the existing footprint of the house. The reason for the increase in the MFA is in order to get from the upper level to the lower level an area under the deck has to be developed so that the stairway going down has a normal and safe pitch. Lorraine Clasquin(Co-Applicant), 13641 Paseo del Roble stated she talked with the architect who told her the 478 sq. ft. increase requested `, was actually 450 sq. ft. She told Council the existing square footage is: 2970 s.f. for the house and 576 sq. ft. for the garage for a total of 3,546 sq. ft. Additionally there is about 1616 sq. ft. of undeveloped dirt under the house for a overall existing floor area of 5162 sq. ft. She further explained that the main upper area of the house is already developed. The existing floor area of 1616 sq. ft. is 8 feet and higher. The area proposed is an additional 386 sq. ft. of floor area,but it is already on the uphill side and totally underneath the house. The only reason it does not count as floor area already is because it isn't 8 feet and it would have to be graded out. She said they have been very sensitive to maximum floor area requirements. She offered for Council review of a letter from UPP Geotechnology,Inc. who stated that putting the retaining wall in would increase the structural integrity of the house and would bring it up to current codes and engineering standards. She said they considered putting the retaining wall at the 8 foot line, but found that would be structurally unsound, so the only choice remaining was to move it back, accounting for 386 sq. ft.of the proposed additional 450 sq. ft. Additionally they propose to turn a portion of an existing deck into living area for the master bedroom. They believe that since the deck already exists and juts out, it wouldn't have a significant impact and doesn't go outside the existing footprint of the house. JUNE 17, 1992 -12- Eric Harslem said in doing the conversion they want to make the house more aesthetically appealing and improve the structural integrity as well. The MDA variance is primarily to provide access to parking to bring it up to minimum standards. Johnson said existing,but undeveloped MFA, could be converted to living area without a variance. That is, the applicant could convert 1304 sq. ft. without a variance because that would bring them up to the 4850 sq. ft. The applicant cannot avoid having that space under the house and as part of the Town's rules it counts against floor area. Because of its size, the applicant is actually 312 sq. ft. over the maximum floor area. He said Council does not like giving out variances to increase floor area beyond the MFA. Recognizing that nothing can be done to reduce the portion underneath the house,Councilmember Johnson said he couldn't find unusual circumstances which would lead him to grant a variance to develop the underneath portion to more than 1304 sq. ft. Eric Harslem responded by saying that he believes one could find two unique circumstances. One has to do with the stairway, which represents a fairly modest amount of the increase. To get from upstairs to downstairs you have to build a steep stairway or have the lower door jacked up beyond the ground level just to get access. Mr. Harslem felt this was a reasonable argument to get the increase in MFA. Secondly, the house was built to different engineering standards and as the project is developed, they Ilhey would like to put the new retaining wall under the bearing wall,which means pushing back and adding some square footage. Siegel wondered why the applicant couldn't build something smaller. He said both the existing house(and garage) of 3546 sq. ft. and the proposed house of 5612 sq. ft. are larger than would be allowed for a brand new house in Town. He also said he believed there were grounds to grant the variance,but he wanted to make sure that the language was clear enough in the findings so that one could tell the rationale from the statement without going to the plans. Eric Harslem said they had a problem with the strict interpretation of the Code and felt uncomfortable compromising the improvement of the structural integrity of the house. The problem was if they did the right thing structurally it would increase the MFA. Tryon said she was dearly was not moved by the fact that this house was built before the present ordinances were in place and would like to see that the findings concentrated on the fact that they were dealing with an exceptionally steep lot and that the siting on the driveway would relate to the MDA and the need for safety,but that the reason the house is going over what it normally would be allowed to be constructed to,is because of the need for an improved foundation and structural integrity of the house. She also said that another unusual finding would be the JUNE 17,1992 -13- fact that the counted but unusable area amounted to 60%-70% of the ` applicant's living area. This, she said,is a significant difference in that ar most homes do not have that much unusable(but counted) floor area. Hubbard said that the improvements requested would make the house fit in better with the surrounding area, making it less conspicuous. Johnson said he felt the applicants decided they wanted a bigger house and more living space and used safety as the argument for approval. Eric Harslem replied they did want a bigger house as well as a safer house and although they are willing to discuss a smaller living area, unfortunately there isn't a way of changing the MFA. Town Planner told the Council that more time was needed to review and refine the findings. MOTION SECONDED AND CARRIED—Moved by Hubbard, seconded by Tryon,and passed by the following roll call vote to tentatively put forth a motion of intent to grant the requested Site Development Permit and Variance with the request that Staff come back with more definitive findings. AYES: Mayor Hubbard,Councilmembers Tryon and Siegel 41, NOES: Councilmember Johnson ABSENT: Councilmember Casey ABSTAIN: None 6.4 APPROVAL OF THE LOS ALTOS SEWER SERVICE CHARGES AND SETTING THE LOS ALTOS HILLS SEWER BASIN RESERVE FUND Johnson commended Staff on the highly informative and well-prepared report. Siegel questioned how the amount of$42,800 for overhead and$5,600 for salaries and benefits was determined. Director of Public Works replied that the Los Altos charges of$141,402 come directly from the City of Los Altos. The salaries and benefits are prorated from the Town. In addition to the Director of Public Work's salary,other public works employees are prorated and included in this figure. City Manager said the overhead figure takes all of the Town's charges and applies what it can to the Sewer Fund. He said the approach used for depreciation was a conservative one,but that there is also a $10,000 fir return to the existing fund. The system allows for the fund to build over JUNE 17,1992 -14- time,particularly when the Town borrows money for emergency repairs, pays that money back,and adds an additional depreciation amount. 411, Director of Public Works in response to Councilmember Siegel's question told the Council that the City of Los Altos has an agreement with and pays the Palo Alto Treatment Plant and the Town has a contract with Los Altos to maintain sewers. The overhead figure for last year was$43,300; this year it is $42,800. The depreciation last year was the same. Salaries for last year were$5,300 compared with$5,600 for this year. He outlined the components of last year's total of$77,300. Hubbard expressed his concern over the overhead rate and requested that the City Manager investigate how the amount was determined and by what percentage it was based and inform the Council of his findings. MOTION SECONDED AND CARRIED—Moved by Tryon, seconded by Johnson, and carried unanimously by all members present to adopt Resolution #22-92 approving$99,000 as the sum to be collected by the City of Los Altos for reimbursement to the Town as a portion of the Annual Sewer Service Charge for fiscal year 1992-93 and to direct the City Clerk to notify the City of Los Altos of the approval. MOTION SECONDED AND CARRIED—Moved by Tryon, seconded by Hubbard and carried unanimously by all members present to continue figv the meeting beyond the scheduled 11:00 closing hour. 7. UNFINISHED BUSINESS 8. NEW BUSINESS 8.1 REQUEST FOR EXTENSION OF SITE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT FOR A SWIMMING POOL AND A FENCE,LANDS OF CARSE, 27125 TAAFFE ROAD Councilmembers discussed the request for extension with Mrs. Carse and the staff report discussion. MOTION SECONDED AND CARRIED—Moved by Tryon, seconded by Siegel, and passed unanimously by all members present to approve the request for extension for a period of one year and encourage the applicant to work with staff on a solution. 8.2 APPROVAL OF CONTRACT FOR LAW ENFORCEMENT SERVICES 411. City Manager told the Council that negotiations had been concluded with the County and the Sheriff's Department as put forth in the staff report. A JUNE 17,1992 -15- correction to the section covering booking fees was handed out to Council members. He explained the change in wording would not bind the Town to pay booking fees if they were found to be no longer legal to non-contract cities. Siegel said that because this contract was one of the largest expenditures the Town makes,he felt the Council would be negligent in not spending additional time discussing the contract and the reports mentioned in the staff report. Tryon agreed that a discussion should take place,perhaps at a budget meeting,especially since she had some related issues to bring forth. Les Jones said it was requested that the contract be forwarded to the Board of Supervisors to certify before the end of the fiscal year. In discussing the financial aspects of the agreement,it deals with how things are put together; the actual plan of service is different from the enabling contract and this is an enabling contract. MOTION SECONDED AND CARRIED—Moved by Hubbard,seconded by Tryon,and passed unanimously by all members present to adopt Resolution #23-92 approving the agreement and the change to the agreement. 8.3 APPOINTMENT TO SANTA CLARA COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION MOTION SECONDED CARRIED—Moved by Hubbard, seconded by Tryon,and passed unanimously by all members present to continue the item to the first meeting in July. S.4 AUTHORIZATION TO ATTEND THE MAYORS AND COUNCIL- MEMBERS EXECUTIVE FORUM IN MONTEREY,JULY 29-31,1992 MOTION SECONDED AND CARRIED—Moved by Tryon, seconded by Hubbard and carried unanimously by all members present to authorize Councilmembers to attend the Mayors and Councilmembers Executive Forum in Monterey,July 29-31, 1992. 8.5. COMPENSATION FOR CITY MANAGER Johnson stated the Council has agreed to increase the City Manager's salary effective July 1, 1992 by 5% of the base salary. Additionally, the City Manager has been awarded three days of family emergency leave, which can be applied to time taken already this year, in anticipation of a policy ( iw on this issue at a later date for all employees. He will also be permitted to attend the International City Managers Association Conference in JUNE 17,1992 -16- Reno,Nevada in September. In principle Council approved the City Manager joining Rotary International and agreed to pay $904.00 for the initiation fee plus monthly dues to meet the weekly obligations of lunches and meetings. Council also agreed that computer equipment, not to exceed$5,000,will be purchased and owned by the Town to be used by the City Manager in his home. MOTION SECONDED AND CARRIED—Moved by Tryon, seconded by Johnson and carried unanimously by all members present to accept the recommendation of the subcommittee to change the compensation for the City Manager and to instruct the City Attorney to prepare an amendment to the contract incorporating the changes specified. 9. REPORTS FROM COMMITTEES, SUB-COMMITTEES, AND COUNCILMEMBERS ON OUTSIDE AGENCIES 9.1 REPORT OF PROPOSED WORDING REGARDING ZONING ORDINANCE AMENDMENT TO ALLOW SOME EXCEPTIONS TO EAVES AND OTHER ARCHITECTURAL FEATURES IN THE SETBACKS Siegel told the Council that the wording may appear somewhat awkward for the modifications outlined in the sub-committee's report,but that the City /� Attorney would prepare the language in Ordinance form. The language �/ would then be referred to the Planning Commission who would hold a public hearing and return a recommendation to the Council. Hubbard expressed reservations about including remodeling within the time period of five years into the language outlining setback line requirements and suggested additional language in paragraph 3 to read: "For new construction or remodels on properties where the options for siting ..." Tryon said a possible wording would be "For additions and remodels to existing conforming structures . . ." Siegel said the subcommittee expected this issue to be managed by the Planning Director and suggested that the following language be added to paragraph 3: This exception may be granted by the Planning Director in writing citing the constraint justifying the exception. Staff reports to the Planning Commission and the Council should include a copy of such a letter. MOTION SECONDED AND CARRIED—Moved by Siegel, seconded by Johnson and carried unanimously by all members present to instruct the City Attorney to prepare a draft ordinance amending the Zoning Code amendments outlined by the subcommittee and to refer the draft Sit ordinance to the Planning Commission for a public hearing. JUNE 17,1992 -17- 10. STAFF REPORTS 10.1 CITY MANAGER 10.2 CITY ATTORNEY City Attorney passed out an article from a journal called Tax Notes regarding the new regulations on social security. The article re-enforces the Town's interpretation and lets the Council know that some organizations are petitioning the Treasury Secretary to have an exemption for payments of under$2000 per year. In response to a request,she checked on bail for parking tickets and discovered if action is taken by July 6 by sending a copy of a resolution as a notice to the Chief Deputy of the Municipal Court, the Town can raise bail to anything they determine reasonable for current violations. 10.3 CITY CLERK 11. COUNCIL-INITIATED ITEMS 12. ADJOURNMENT There being no further new or old business to discuss,Town Council Meeting was adjourned at 11:35 p.m. in memory of Wes Parmett. Respectfully sumitted, Kathie Bewick The minutes of the June 17, 1992 Regular City Council Meeting were approved at the July 16, 1992 Regular City Council Meeting. JUNE 17, 1992 -18- Attachment to June 17, 1992 CIS LANDS OF MOORING FINDINGS city Council Minutes APPROVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL TO DENY THE SITE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT AS SUBMITTED AND HEARD AT A PUBLIC HEARING ON JUNE 17, 1992 FINDINGS 1 . The proposed project is not consistent with Section 10 of the Land Use Element of the General Plan, General Principles: "Uses of land should maintain the rural atmosphere, minimize disturbance to the natural terrain, minimize removal of natural vegetation and create compatibility of development with the natural environment through site design, architecture and landscaping". and Sec 104, (1) Objectives: "To maintain rural atmosphere associated with established residential areas of the community and to ensure a similar atmosphere in future residential developments." Because the proposed residence as located on the site will change the rural atmosphere and will not be compatible with the natural environment of the La Paloma basin area, since the proposed house is designed at such a height and close distance from the road relative to other homes in the area, that the open feeling and scenic corridor is highly impacted. The project will not maintain a similar atmosphere as existing development on similarly shaped lots since other long and narrow lots have been designed with the development at a greater distance from the road, at a lesser height or more adequately screened by landscape vegetation or orchards, and with less visible concentrated bulk and mass. 2. The proposed project is not consistent with the Town's General Plan, Housing Policy Section 506 "to preserve the integrity of the existing residential character and to maintain and enhance the rural atmosphere" in that the development height, bulk, mass, and proposed setback encroaches into the open feeling and scenic corridor on La Paloma, rather than enhancing and promoting the L existing neighborhood character. Other developments in the area on fir' similarly shaped lots have been designed with the development at a how greater distance from the road, at a lesser height or more adequately screened by landscaping and with less visible concentrated bulk and mass. 3. The proposed project is not consistent with Section 10-2.701, Purposes of the Site Development ordinance which states: 10-2.701 "The purposes of this article are to ensure that the site, location, and configuration of structures are unobtrusive when viewed from off-site; that scenic views are retained; that buildings do not dominate the natural landscape; that ridgelines and hilltops are preserved..." Because the proposed residence in this location will not be unobtrusive when viewed from off-site and will dominate the natural landscape, as evidenced by the comments of Mr. Glathe and Mr. Treichler at the June 3, 1992 meeting. The appearance of bulk, mass and height will be highly visible from the road by presenting a vertical barrier that will interrupt the scenic views and the feeling of open space. The building will appear to dominate the site, since there will be minimal view from off-site past the house to the more open area of the lot. 4. The proposed project is not consistent with Section 10-2.702(a), Siting, Alternate Locations, of the Site Development Ordinance which states: • 10-2.702(a) "Alternative locations. The location of • buildings and structures shall be selected so as to minimize run-off from the site, the volume of off-site drainage created, the destruction • of alteration of natural vegetation, and impairment of scenic views from off the site." • Because the location of the proposed residence has not been selected to minimize the impairment of scenic views from off-site, the proposed residence in this location will not be unobtrusive when viewed from off-site and will dominate the natural landscape, as evidenced by the comments of Mr. Glathe and and Mr. Treichler at the June 3, 1992 meeting. The appearance of bulk, mass and height will be highly visible from the road by presenting a vertical barrier that will interrupt the scenic views and the feeling of open space. The building will appear to dominate the site since there will be minimal view from off-site past the house to the more open area of INS the lot. 5. The proposed project is not consistent with Section 10- 2.702(c), Disturbance to the site, which states (in part) "The location of all structures should create as little disturbance as possible to the natural landscape" because the project has not been designed with the constraints and opportunities of the site in mind. These constraints of the lot are its narrowness, flatness, and lack of existing vegetation, which makes it a highly visible lot. The location of the proposed residence will create disturbance to the natural landscape because it is a bulky, massive home in a location close to the road. The location of this structure is extremely visible off-site and disturbs the open space of the area. It would be possible to accomplish some mitigation to the appearance of bulk, mass and height of the proposed design by 4 turning the residence to face north with the width being transferred at from the narrow front of the lot to the deeper length of the lot. Additionally, since there is adequate depth to the lot in front of the existing secondary unit (approximately 100'), the main structure could be set back further from the street. If the house was moved further back on the lot the outdoor living area could be relocated to the front of the house which would add to the open feeling of the site as viewed from the road and other areas off-site. Landscaping could be incorporated into the design of the lot to adequately screen the outdoor living area and the home from La Paloma in order to allow for privacy of the property owners on and off-site. The orchard proposed at the rear of the lot would be more appropriate at the front of the lot which would be similar in design to other lots on La Paloma. Such modifications to the location will retain more open space and minimize the impairment of scenic views from off-site. When developing the lot the property owner should consider a location that would not appear to block the open space feeling or scenic corridor of La Paloma. Alternatively, less height, bulk, and mass this close to the road would be more in keeping with this objective. Less width to the design would also be more compatible in order to facilitate open view corridors into the site. seer The opportunities of the site are its considerable depth, of 368', and flatness which encourage siting of the development further from the road and in numerous configurations since topography does not severely limit the siting options. Other lots on La Paloma that are long and narrow have taken advantage of similar lot opportunities and constraints and have enhanced rather than impaired the scenic corridor character of the La Paloma basin.