HomeMy WebLinkAbout10/21/1992 (2) Minutes of a Regular Meeting
October 21, 1992
Town of Los Altos Hills
City Council Meeting
Wednesday, October 21, 1992,6:00 p.m.
Council Chambers,26379 Fremont Read
1. CALL TO ORDER, ROLL CALL, AND PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
Mayor Tryon called the Regular Meeting of the City Council to order at 6:05 p.m. in the
Council Chambers at Town Hall.
Present: Mayor Tryon and Councilmembers Dauber,Hubbard, and Johnson
Absent: Councilmember Siegel
Staff: City Manager Les Jones,II, City Attorney Sandy Sloan
Town Planner Linda Niles, Director of Public Works Jeff Peterson
ihir
Press: None
2. APPOINTMENTS AND PRESENTATIONS
3. PLANNING COMMISSION REPORT
Dot Schreiner reported that the following items were discussed at the
Planning Commission meeting of October 14, 1992: (1) Lands of Yu,
12000 Emerald Hill Lane—item continued to October 28; request was
made to redesign the landscape to enable a better screening of the house
and to submit an irrigation plan; (2)Lands of Movassete, 12660
Zappettini Court—request for Site Development Permit for landscape,
lighting,and driveway modification was approved with the staff's
recommended conditions; (3) Lands of Calvo, 26201 Elena Road—request
for Site Development Permit to move a gazebo 40 feet from the property
line was approved and item will return to the Commission for a
discussion of the landscape and addition of a fence; (4)Lands of Shao,
25640 Elena Road—request for a Site Development Permit for a new
OCTOBER 21, 1992 -1-
residence approved,adding the condition to dedicate ROW and connect
to sewer.
41,
4. CONSENT CALENDAR
Items Removed-4.1 Minutes of September 16, 1992(Dauber),4.1 Minutes
of October 7, 1992 (Dauber),4.2 (Dauber),4.3e (Hubbard)—incorrectly
included in agenda;delete,4.4 (Dauber) and 4.5 (Hubbard).
MOTION SECONDED AND CARRIED—Moved by Johnson,seconded by Hubbard,
and passed unanimously by all members present to approve the balance of the Consent
Calendar, specifically:
4.1 APPROVED MINUTES: SEPTEMBER 30, 1992
4.3 DECIDED NOT TO REVIEW THE FOLLOWING PLANNING
COMMISSION ACTION AT ITS MEETING ON OCTOBER 14, 1992:
4.3A LANDS OF MAYLE,26895 ST. FRANCIS DRIVE. REQUEST FOR A
SITE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT FOR AN ADDITION, DRIVEWAY
RELOCATION,AND ENTRY COLUMNS
4.3B LANDS OF MOVASSATE,12660 ZAPPETTINI COURT. REQUEST
FOR A SITE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT FOR
LANDSCAPE/LIGHTING AND DRIVEWAY MODIFICATION
4.3c LANDS OF CALVO,26201 ELENA ROAD. REQUEST FOR A SITE
DEVELOPMENT PERMIT FOR A MAJOR ADDITION,
HARDSCAPE AND GAZEBO
4.3D LANDS OF SI-IAO,25640 ELENA ROAD. REQUEST FOR A SITE
DEVELOPMENT PERMIT FOR A NEW RESIDENCE
4.6 APPROVED PROCLAMATION: "RED RIBBON WEEK" OCTOBER 24
TO NOVEMBER 1, 1992.
4.7 APPROVED AUTHORIZATION FOR DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC WORKS
TO CERTIFY RIGHT-OF-WAY FOR EL MONTE/STONEBROOK
SIGNALIZATION PROJECT.–Reso#44-92.
4.8 APPROVED DEDICATION OF PATHWAY EASEMENT FOR LANDS OF
YOUNG ON SADDLE COURT–Reso#45-92.
OCTOBER 21, 1992 -2-
Items Removed:
4.1 APPROVAL OF MINUTES OF SEPTEMBER 16,1992
Dauber requested that the following wording be clarified concerning the
discussion on the pathway. Page 2,line 8: "The question was raised of
an easement to be granted..." should read "The question was raised of a
pathway easement that was requested to be granted ..." Page 2, line 12:
"...was getting a dedication of the future pathway ..." should read: "was
getting a dedication of a future offroad pathway ..."Page 2,line 15:
"...question about why the small part of the path..." should read
"...question about why the offroad portion of the path..." Page 2, last
sentence,first paragraph: "The condition was also added that the
driveway to provide access to the other lot would not extend past
approximately 150 yards thereby making the property not further
subdividable" should read "The condition was also added that there
would be an easement on the driveway to provide access to the other lot,but that
the easement would not extend further than 150 yards."
MOTION SECONDED AND CARRIED—Moved by Johnson, seconded by Dauber,
and passed unanimously by all members present to approve the Minutes of
September 16, 1992 as amended.
4.1 APPROVAL OF MINUTES OF OCTOBER 7,1992
Dauber requested that the following wording be changed: Page 5,last
paragraph reads "Mrs. Penny' and should read "Mrs.,Phinney."
Page 7,first paragraph following vote: "It was also agreed that staff
would bring the recalculated maximum floor area and maximum
development area numbers back to the Council if there was a problem
and staff would also research the Simonds pathway dedication" should
read "It was also agreed that staff would bring back the maximum floor area
and maximum development area numbers recalculated as a result of the required
dedications." Page 7, item 6.3, paragraph 2, last sentence: "...Mr. Packard
would give his son an easement" should read "...Mr. Packard's son
would give him an easement." On the same item in the following
paragraph: "...studied the driveway and determine there was a safe site
distance" should read: "...studied the driveway and determined that a
safe site distance could be achieved."
Page 8,line 3 reads: "Dauber noted that the floor area had not been
reduced on the other lots on La Paloma (such as the Nelsons)..." should
read: "Dauber noted that the floor area had not been reduced on the
other lots on La Paloma due to increased setbacks (such as the Nelsons) ..."
OCTOBER 21, 1992 -3-
Page 8,paragraph 2 reads: 'PASSED BY CONSENSUS: To delete
Condition #25 ..." should read: "PASSED BY CONSENSUS To delete
41,01 Condition #21 ._"
MOTION SECONDED AND CARRIED—Moved by Dauber,seconded by Hubbard,
and passed unanimously by all members present to approve the Minutes of
October 7, 1992 as amended.
4.2 APPROVAL OF WARRANTS: $97,090.95 (10/15/92)
Les Jones at the request of Councilmember Dauber explained that a company
called Watertechnics was given a contract by the Council to set up a
database program for building permits and it is also the database
program that will be expanded to develop parcel information. Presently
it has all of the parcel information on it and they are moving to down
load all the information that was previously in the database into the new
database. He explained that the company was very active in the first
phase of the project and will be acting in an advisory basis in the future.
He said he asked the company for a proposal for the next phase of the
program which would be to incorporate all of the planning information
into the database. He stated the program was currently being phased in
and it was just a matter of time before everything was automated.
Dauber expressed concern that travel expenses appeared to be excessive for
this organization in that they were located in Watsonville and that the
Town had to pay 90 minutes worth of travel time (at$80 per hour) every
time the consultant came to the Town.
MOTION SECONDED AND CARRIED—Moved by Dauber, seconded by Johnson,
and passed unanimously by all members present to approve the warrants as presented.
4.4 INTRODUCTION OF ORDINANCE REGARDING CONFLICTS OF
INTEREST(FIRST READING)
Dauber questioned why the building inspector would be removed from the
list and at what point the conflict of interest would exist.
City Attorney explained that the current law elaborates on State law,enabling
the building inspector to be involved in decisions. She explained that
most cities list these employees because of their ability to use judgment
and interpretation and discretion.
MOTION SECONDED AND CARRIED—Moved by Johnson,seconded by Tryon,
and passed unanimously by all members present to waive and introduce the ordinance
regarding conflicts of interest for the second reading with the direction to the City
Attorney to include the building inspector.
OCTOBER 21, 1992 -4-
4.5 ADOPTION OF ORDINANCE AMENDING ZONING AND SITE
4 DEVELOPMENT CODE WITH REGARD TO DAY CARE CENTERS
11/ (SECOND READING)
Hubbard requested that Section 2(e)(1)be revised to read: "the large family
day care home is to be located in either the primary dwelling or a
secondary dwelling,but not both."
PASSED BY CONSENSUS: To bring the item back with the changes in
wording for further discussion when Councilmember Siegel would
be present.
5. UNFINISHED BUISNESS
5.1 REPRESENTATION ON THE HOUSING AND COMMUNITY
DEVELOPMENT PROGRAM CITIZENS'ADVISORY COMMITTEE
PASSED BY CONSENSUS: To ask Staff to carry a request to the Planning
Commission to see if a member of the Commission would volunteer to be
a representative on the Advisory Committee.
6. NEW BUSINESS
411,
6.1 COMMUNICATION FROM THE MOUNTAIN VIEW MOFFET
COMMITTEE CONCERNING A RESOLUTION SUPPORTING THE
TRANSFER TO NASA AND OPPOSING EFFORTS TO INTRODUCE
GENERAL AVIATION AT MOFFETT
Mayor Tryon said she was uncomfortable with the sixth paragraph from the
Sample Points for Resolution for Moffet Field which read: 'WHEREAS,
converting Moffet Field to a reliever airport for San Jose International
could have serious impacts on key industries." She stated the Council
should be able to back up everything in a resolution from the Council
• level,and she did not feel as though the Council was capable of backing
up that particular resolution. Additionally,Mayor Tryon asked the
Council to consider changing the wording on paragraph 3 from
"Opposes efforts to dose Reid Hillview Airport and to relocate general
aviation operations from airports in San Jose to Moffet" to "Opposes
efforts to relocate general aviation operations to Moffet" She stated the
Council had not studied the matter enough to know the options and
issues involved with closing Reid Hillview Airport.
Hubbard stated and Dauber concurred that although he saw the merits of
removing aviation in general from San Jose, his initial reaction was to
OCTOBER 21, 1992 -5-
take no action on the item, since there was no immediate impact on the
Town's community.
thr Johnson and Tryon agreed that the issue should be looked at from a
regional standpoint.
PASSED BY CONSENSUS: To bring the item back on the next agenda for an
in-depth discussion when all Councilmembers are present and to have
staff inform the Mountain View City Council that the item will be
brought back for discussion.
7.0 REPORTS FROM COMMITTEES, SUB-COMMITTEES, AND
COUNCILMEMBERS ON OUTSIDE AGENCIES
7.1 PATHWAYS,RECREATION AND PARKS COMMITTEE:
SEMI-ANNUAL REPORT
Hubbard referred to item 11, "Rejected Tracts" where it stated that the
recommendation would be for Council to accept the dedications. He said
it was his belief that this action had already taken place.
City Attorney responded that she was waiting for the legal descriptions to be
prepared by the Director of Public Works.
fir
Dot Schreiner said she gave staff a copy of all of the rejected tracts in Town,
but that in speaking to some of the Councilmembers,they expressed
concern that they wanted to pick up only those tracts that had the
pathways that are now going to be signed and maintained. Ms.
Schreiner,however,asked the Council to consider picking everything up.
She also reported that 45 posts were left,20 of which were not of the
better quality. The Committee was formally requesting that the Council
allow the them to use those in a less visible spot with the understanding
that when those and the additional 25 posts are placed, that the
Committee would be coming back to the Council for more posts. She
informed Council that posts are being rapidly used up since the
Committee has been marking the offroad paths at both ends, i.e., when
there are seven segments in one area, 14 posts are placed.
Dauber requested that staff give Council an update on item 12 of the
Committee report, "Areas of Concern." The following comments were
made in response to that request.
Director of Public Works informed Council that the parcel map for the lot
line adjustment for Lands of Harrington had recently been accepted by
Council and it had been recorded. He said Harrington will proceed with
OCTOBER 21, 1992 -s-
his pool house,but in order to get a final approval from the Town,he
must build the condition pathway.
thir Town Planner stated that Lands of Carse would be returning in the near-term
future for a a revision to their site development permit for the pool,
which had been extended.
Dot Schreiner said the Committee was concerned there was no evidence of
recordation on Lands of Carse and that on Lands of Markoff,the project
of the barn was never finalized and the easements were not granted.
Director of Public Works informed the Council that the Markoff's had
constructed a horse rink,which involved some grading,building some
small retaining walls,a fence around the rink,and replacing a fence
around their property. The work that has been done needs to be
permitted and the staff has made them aware of that fact. In order for
them to get final approval,staff will recommend that all previous
conditions that have not been done are indeed done.
Dauber inquired whether there was a cost estimate on the five projects that
the Committee wanted to discuss with Council.
Dot Schreiner stated she was under the impression that a recommendation
had been made to use the Conservation Corp. or the Trail Center for the
460 clearing and/or construction of the path routes specified in the letter to
the Director of Public Works.
Director of Public Works said he would study the matter and give the
Council an update.
7.2 SAFETY COMMITTEE: RECOMMENDATION FOR A FOUR-WAY STOP
SIGN AT ALTAMONT AND TAAFFE ROAD INTERSECTION
Bob Fisher,Member of Safety Committee said that although he hadn't done
an exhaustive survey of other places to see what the degree of danger is,
and whether it is comparable to other places with four-way stops,the
Committee did determine there was potential for an accident at the
intersection. He also said he understood that some of the neighbors
expressed just such concern,which is what motivated the Committee to
inspect the intersection in the first place. In response to an inquiry from
Hubbard,Mr. Fisher said the Committee did not see a lot of high speed
traffic through the intersection,but generally their observation was that it
was potentially a hazardous intersection because a car on Taaffe would
not see an approaching car and if the approaching car was coming at a
sufficient speed, the car on Taaffe could pull into the intersection and the
car from Altamont might not be able to stop in time.
OCTOBER 21, 1992 -7-
Dauber wondered if a public hearing should be held to see what the
neighbors,particularly on Altamont,thought of the dangers of the
41/ intersection and what the neighborhood feel was.
PASSED BY CONSENSUS: To bring the item back for review on the
November 18, 1992 agenda and to ask the Sheriffs Office to give the
Council a computer printout of accidents for that area as well as their
opinion on the site distance. Further, the Mayor,Mayor Pro-Tern and
City Manager will agendize the item for neighborhood review as well,
should the Sheriff's report warrant such a review.
7.3 ENVIRONMENTAL DESIGN AND PROTECTION COMMITTEE:
RECOMMENDATION CONCERNING DESIGNATION OF
HERITAGE TREES
Ruth Buneman,Chairman, Environmental Design&Protection Committee,
stated that various members of the Committee had looked at the two
trees in question and talked with the owners of the trees,who were very
eager to have them designated as heritage trees. In addition,the owners
did receive a copy of the heritage ordinance.
City Attorney read the following designation paragraph for the Council:
"Upon recommendation of the Environmental Design &Protection
( Committee and following a noticed public hearing,the City Council by
resolution may designate a tree as a heritage tree. At the hearing, the
Council shall consider a plan of protection for the tree and may require a
report prepared by an arborist and paid for by the Town. If the owner of
the property where the proposed heritage tree is located protests the
designation, the City Council may override the protest only with a 4/5
vote of the Council. If the tree is designated as a heritage tree, the
Council shall adopt a plan of protection." Therefore,she told the Council
that at the same meeting where they designated the trees,they should
adopt a plan of protection,with or without an aborist's report.
Ms. Sloan said that when the Ordinance was adopted,there was some
concern that it might place a burden on the owner of the tree because the
property owner is required to take care of the tree in accordance with the
plan of protection. To counterbalance that burden,it was felt that if the
Town needed an arborist report, it would pay for the report since the tree
would benefit the whole city.
Mayor Tryon said the issue was that decisions have to be made on both sides
at a public hearing. The Council needs to decide whether it wants to
expend the funds to have an arborist report and the owner then needs to
determine whether they wish to accept the plan of protection that is
` recommended.
Yr OCTOBER 21, 1992 -8-
Dauber said she visited both sites and both trees were spectacular. In the case
of the Burnell's tree,you had to walk into their back yard in order to see
the tree. As far as the Botsford's tree was concerned,because they were
not home,she was unable to see the tree without going into their
backyard. Because they are so difficult to view unless you are visiting
the owners of the trees, she did not see the advantage to the Town in
declaring them heritage trees.
Mayor Tryon said she also was concerned about visibility,but that she came
to a different conclusion. She felt that a decision shouldn't be made
based on who was living in the home at the present time,but rather the
Town should protect major important trees for the future. She warned
that a developer could come in,buy a house and want to tear down the
tree,or a future owner may not care for it and the Town would lose a
major heritage tree.
Ms. Buneman said,in response to a concern of Hubbard, that it was the
monetary responsibility of the owner to take care of the tree according to
the arborist's report,but that the report itself was the monetary
responsibility of the Town.
Hubbard questioned the cost of reports and the fee structure for such a
request for a report. He said that two types of situations exist. One is
E� when a house comes before the Council through the site development or
subdivision process. At those opportunities the Council could designate
a tree as a heritage tree with a condition that the owner pick up the cost
of the report. The other situaiton is when a resident voluntarily comes
before the Council.
Dauber wondered how the Town would enforce the Ordinance,assuming
there is a care plan. She also thought that visibility was an important
issue to further explore.
City Attorney said she lives in an unincorporated area of San Mateo County
where there is a heritage tree ordinance. In that area most tree people
will not trim a tree of a certain size without getting a tree permit,because
they are all aware of the law. The tree trimmers themselves are helping
the property owners enforce the ordinance.
8. STAFF REPORTS
8.1 CITY MANAGER
FRIENDS OF WEST WIND. City Manager told the Council he would be
meeting with the president of Friends of Westwind during the first week
of November to discuss the potential for renegotiations of the
lease agreement.
OCTOBER 21, 1992 -9-
PATHWAY DEDICATIONS. Mayor Tryon requested that staff work on a
letter to let people with pathways pending know that they can dedicate
4109 and offer them as a gift to the Town and possibility even receive a
tax deduction.
She also asked whether there had been a resolution of the dispute
between the Muellers and the Markoffs. Wants to make sure that if there
are fees to be paid,they will be paid.
Director of Public Works,replying to an inquiry from Mayor Tryon, said that
he had been working to resolve the dispute between the Muellers and the
Markoffs. He explained that most of the work had been done to date;but
there were about two piles of aggregate left to be spread and some
construction to take place that goes around the horse rink. He said he
was at the Markoffs October 21 and allowed them to spread the
aggregate because they had a contractor,but told them there could be no
additional work on the fence around the horse rink. He informed
Council that they have submitted some information in a letter to staff
stating what has been done and what the intended design is. Staff,in
turn, requested an "as-built survey" so that staff could make sure there
was no encroachment on the neighbor's property. He told Council that
staff was moving through the process with the owners to make sure they
were properly permitted,but reiterated the fact that staff found out about
the pathway not being dedicated recently, which would have to be
411, factored in as well.
RESIDENTIAL GUIDELINES HANDBOOK SUBCOMMITTEE.
Councilmembers Johnson and Dauber volunteered to be on the
Subcommittee. The handbook guideline process will take about seven
months to complete.
UPDATE ON FEES STRUCTURE. The City Manager explained the project
was quite complex and that they were currently working on the desk
audit of administrative staff and to determine(and have on record)
justification for establishing overhead rates. He said the committee was
also working through the terms of retaining counter assistance for the
Director of Public Works and Town Planner. He spoke with the financial
officer about determining an appropriate level of deposits for different
types of projects so that recommendations of the billing subcommittee
could be implemented and to draw down against deposits, as opposed to
billing separately.
ATHERTON COURT PATH. Mayor Tryon asked whether a letter had been
found in the record about offering the path to the Town in lieu of thepath
above. She said the Simonds agreed,as part of a neighborly gesture, to
offer to the Town an easement commencing at the bulb of Atherton
likbar Court. The Town accepted the dedication in lieu of the other path (along
the upper part of Atherton Court behind everyone's houses) and even
OCTOBER 21, 1992 -10-
sent in a bulldozer to get the poison oak out. The City Manager said he
would look into finding the letter.
41100
8.2 CITY ATTORNEY
There was no report from the City Attorney.
8.3 CITY CLERK
There was no additional report from the City Clerk other than the Council
correspondence for the period of October 2 through October 14, 1992.
9. COUNCIL-INITIATED ITEMS
9.1 DISCUSSION OF POSSIBLE JOINT MEETINGS WITH CITY COUNCIL
AND PLANNING COMMISSION
It was decided to hold a joint meeting on Tuesday,November 17, 1992
at 4:30 pm.
9.2 OTHER COUNCIL-INITIATED ITEMS
EARLY MEETINGS FOR CITY COUNCIL. An early meeting was scheduled
for November 4, 1992 from 4:30 to 6:00 for the purpose of discussions
with the Sheriffs office about their plan of service, and a presentation
from the Santa Clara Water Company about Adobe Creek.
DENNY SPANGLER LETTER. Mayor Tryon will work with the City Manager
to complete the letter to Denny Spangler.
LEAGUE OF CALIFORNIA CITIES CONFERENCE. Mayor Tryon reported
that the LOCC Conference was excellent and that the meetings were very
helpful. She gave to staff a copy of one resolution that passed,which was
to ask for legislation to require counties to specify where property tax
dollars go.
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETINGS. Dauber suggested that a
representative from the Council attend Planning Commission meetings.
After a brief discussion,it was decided that periodically a Council
member would attend a Commission meeting.
OAKLAND FIRE STORM. Hubbard reported that he attended a meeting on
the Oakland fire storm. He was impressed that the Town has already
` implemented most of the suggestions made at the meeting. He indicated
likr he would offer a memo to the Council for their review of the meeting and
outlining some of the suggestions.
OCTOBER 21, 1992 -11-
LOS ALTOS GARBAGE COMPANY. Hubbard reported on the negotiations
for a new contract. During their meeting they reviewed some of the
numbers and the overall strategy as how to approach the contract. For
simplicity,and in order to study the yard waste program in more detail,
it was excluded so that they could go ahead with negotiations for the San
Jose fee increases as well as the Town's fee structure first. The yard
waste program would be studied at a later date,and after looking at the
Cupertino program which was just established.
A budget was discussed, where the LAGC would come forward with a
budget for the coming year and at the same time have actual numbers for
the previous year. He explained that Los Altos has an agreement where
the fees are based on expenses,but said there were questions about the
legitimacy of a number of expenses. He said progress is being made and
the next meeting was scheduled for November 5, and reported that the
City Manager was working on the wording for the agreement. It was his
hope to bring the matter back to the Council with additional information
during the second meeting in November for a decision.
Dauber told the Council that the City of Los Altos was proposing to have curb
side pickup of yard waste for$6.15 per month. The plan was to use 90
gallon cans and to offer curb side pick up every other week for six
months and once per month for the remaining six months. She pointed
d( out that the Town would be at a disadvantage if they had to go to a plan
qtr like the City of Los Altos, since they currently did not charge an
additional fee to residences for yard waste if they carry it down to
Purissima Center. Therefore, she pointed out that maybe the Town
should consider placing a fee on the existing yard waste program.
Johnson said that and other options were being considered.
10. PRESENTATIONS FROM THE FLOOR
10.1 RAMSEY RESIDENCE, 13040 ALTA LANE NORTH
Councilmember Johnson excused himself from discussion on this item.
Bob Owen,The Owen Companies,445 South San Antonio Road,Los Altos
94022 reviewed the letter he submitted to the Council concerning this
property. He told the Council he was aware that the neighbors
surrounding this property were concerned about maintaining the rural
atmosphere of the area. He said they didn't want roads widened, nor
turnarounds.
Mr. Owen said his buyer was concerned about asphalt on the site and
41, was considering straightening his driveway and to have offstreet parking
farther away from his front door. He asked the buyer whether he would
OCTOBER 21, 1992 -12-
consider incorporating the turnaround area into his driveway. The
driveway would have to be reconfigured,but the buyer was amenable to
` that suggestion. Mr.Owen thought that might be the solution to satisfy
everybody.
City Attorney told the applicant that a site development permit is granted
after a public hearing and all the conditions are part of that process,so to
amend a site development permit also requires a noticed public hearing
and decision after all the evidence is heard at a public hearing. The
Town Code does not specify that it must go to the Planning Commission
and then to the Council, so if Council wishes,they could bring the item
back straight to the Council.
Town Planner expressed that her concern was that when the item was
discussed at the Planning Commission level,it was indicated that there
were no other dedications of additional right of way on Alta Lane North
or Alta Lane South as far as the City Engineer and Town Planner could
find. Additionally there were no hookups to sewers and it would be
very costly to hook up to sewers that the Town was aware of. Since the
Planning Commission meeting the City Engineer found out there was a
sewer system actually adjacent to the property and there was dedication
required on that property as well. So,the Planning Commission did not
have all the information on the dedication or the sewer; therefore, they
were not able to discuss it at the length that the Council did.
Dauber stated she knew the Planning Commission was very disturbed that all
the additional information was brought forward after they had already
talked about the item. She believed the Commission would like to hear
the item again.
City Attorney answered Hubbard's inquiry as to what would be
reconsidered,if the item was brought back for discussion. She said that
Mr. Owen has only asked for the Council to reconsider only the condition
to do with right of way.
Mayor Tryon asked the City Attorney whether the Council was allowed
under a reconsideration to deal with any other items that may come up in
the public hearing. The City Attorney responded they could.
Hubbard stated that he did not feel he has had an adequate amount of time to
consider the full ramification of the decisions. He said he would like to
have those issues "revisited."
Dauber said she also would like to have the issues "revisited." She also
requested that staff bring back information summarizing the difference
between a corridor, a private road, and a public road and what the
requirements are for all three.
OCTOBER 21, 1992 -13-
MOTION SECONDED AND CARRIED—Moved by Dauber,seconded by Hubbard,
and passed unanimously by all members present to request that the Planning
Commission discuss the item at their next meeting and that the Council hold a public
hearing on the item for their November 4, 1992 meeting.
11. PUBLIC HEARINGS
11.1 PROPOSAL TO ELIMINATE SECTION 8.603b OF THE TOWN'S
MUNICIPAL CODE(SIGNS AND ADVERTISING STRUCTURES)AND
SUBSTITUTE WITH "DIRECTIONAL SIGNS WHICH COMPLY WITH
THE TOWN'S ORDINANCES MAY BE PUT UP AS TEMPORARY SIGNS
FOR LESS THAN 72 HOURS."
Dot Schreiner, 14301 Saddle Mountain Drive said she presently has three
homes for sale in the Saddle Mountain subdivision;each home has an
appropriate realtor's sign with the realtor's name and telephone number.
At the corner there are three additional signs. She said she would hate to
see many individual signs, as it is excessive.
Mayor Tryon stated she believes the massive amounts of signs may have a
negative effect on the Town and to the realtors themselves,because when
people drive through an area and see 20 signs for only three homes that
are for sale,it presents a negative impression for the property.
MOTION SECONDED AND CARRIED—Moved by Dauber, seconded by Hubbard,
and passed unanimously by all members present to instruct the City Attorney to amend
the Ordinance to eliminate Section 8.603b of the Municipal Code and to substitute the
new proposed wording.
Hubbard questioned whether the 72 hour stipulation was cumulative, and
whether a person could put up an "Open House" sign on Friday,
Saturday, and Sunday.
Johnson said he couldn't see how the 72 hour stipulation would be
enforceable. He stated that, although the rule was a good one, if you
cannot enforce a law, you shouldn't make it.
Town Planner suggested the Council refer this item back to staff to bring back
additional information pertaining to the 72 hour stipulation and
including the full ordinance for their review.
Mayor Tryon said that the City Clerk is authorized to issue licenses for
additional directional advertising displays. She said an option would be
to authorize the City Clerk to issue licenses for the placing of temporary
L directional advertising displays. Then the enforcement issue would be
taken care of because it would be a City Clerk permit issue for a period
of time.
OCTOBER 21, 1992 -14-
Johnson questioned whether that would be putting a burden on the realtors.
46, Dauber commented that it had been her experience that one person from each
realtor was responsible for putting down the signs and, therefore,a
realtor would only have to make one stop at City Hall for a permit.
PASSED BY CONSENSUS: To bring the item back at such time that staff
feels they have the appropriate wording and something that Council
can enforce.
12. ADJOURNMENT
There being no further new or old business to discuss,Town Council Meeting was
adjourned at 8:00 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
%
Kathie Bewick
The minutes of the October 21, 1992 Regular City Council Meeting were approved
at the November 4, 1992 Regular City Cbuncil Meeting.
4111,
OCTOBER 21, 1992 -15-