The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About03/11/1985CITY COUNCIL TOWN OF IAS ALTOS HTT.TC 26379 Fremont Road Los Altos Hills, California n � • � • 9 IS'� 'IiC li � A JOINT MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL AM THE PIANNING COMMISSION Monday, March 11, 1985 cc: Reel 164, Tr. I, Side II, 001 -end; Tr. II, Side I, 001-959 Mayor Allison called the Adjourned Regular Meeting of the City Council to order at 5:00 p.m. in the Council Cambers at Town Hall.COmmissioner Carico called the Special Meeting of the Planning Camnission to order at 5:00 p.m. in the Council Chambers at 'Town Hall. A. ROLL CALL AND PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE: Present: Mayor Allison and Ocuncilmenbers Dronkert, Fuhrnan, Rydell and van Tamelen Planning Commissioners Carico, Gottlieb, Lachenbruch, Siegel, Struthers and Yanez Absent: Planning Commission Chairman Ruranoff Staff: City Manager George Scarborough, City Attorney Frank Gillio, City Engineer Michael Enright, Staff Planner Nancy Lytle and City Cleric Pat Dowd Press: Sara Wykes, San Jose Mercury B. PUBLIC HEARING: a) 03NSIDERATION OF EXTENSION FOR TEN MONTHS AND FIFTEEN DAYS AFTER MARCH 11, 1985 OF ORDDs]ANCE #292 WHICH MUIRED A SPECIAL LAND USE PERMIT FOR CON- STRULTION OR C/ERSION OF STRUCTURES EXCEEDING A HEIGHT OF FIFTEEN (15) FEET IN AN R -A RESIDENTIAL -AGRICULTURAL DISTRICT The following addressed the Council in opposition to the extension of the urgency ordinance. They questioned why the urgency ordinance had been adopted in the first place, what additional time delays would be imposed on the applicants as a result of having to go through the special land use permit process and what, if any, alternatives had been considered by the Council: Mr. Ken Pastrof, 13015 developer; and Mr. and Mrs Tan Lynch 25701 Lomita Linda Court. In addition, the following addressed the Council expressing serious concerns about the impact of the urgency ordinance on the proposed development of their lots. In each case, they were in the final stages of design, had complied with the Tom's ordinances up to the adoption of the urgency ordinance and were about to submit their plans to the T'owm for review: Mr. ai-4 Mrs. Michael Myer arrl representatives frau their architectural firm of e in Group p Prerson and G en Sumo,); Mr. Wayne %W Graham; Mr. Lim arm so s s sen a represeu- CITY OM CIL MINUTES - March 6, 1985 B. PUBLIC BEARING: Item a) Extension of Urgency Ordinance (continued): The following addressed the Council in support of the extension of the urgency ordinance: Wendy Hearn14221 Miranda; Mrs. Judy Carico, 25311 O'Keefe Lane; Mrs. Carol Gottlieb 24290 Sue erhill• and Fran Stevenson, 26989 Beaver Lane. Council reiterated the findings for the urgency ordinance as stated in Ordinance #292 and stated that at this time no change had been made to the ordinances. Adoption of the ordinance before Council would mean that Council would review the plans for projects over fifteen feet. The importance of the principles as set forth in the General Plan was also emphasized. Rydell expressed serious concerns over the length of time of the extension before Council, specifically 10 months and 15 days. The City Attorney reported that the Council could repeal at any time by ordinance the ordinance which had extended the urgency ordinance. MOTION SEC[xIDID AMID CARRIED: Moved by Dronkert, seconded by Fuhrman and passed unanimously to close the public hearing regarding extension of the urgency ordinance. MOTION SBCONDED AMID CARRIED: Moved by Rydell, seconded by van Tamelen and passed ,unanimously to waive further reading of the ordinance. MOTION SECONDED AMID CARRIED: Moved by Dronkert, seconded by FUhrman and gassed by the following roll call vote to adopt Ordinance #295 adopting as an urgency matter the first extension of Ordinance #292. AYES: Mayor Allison and Councilm mhera Dronkert, FUhrnan and van Tanelen NOES: Councilmember Rydell C. STUDY SESSION - CITY COUNCIL AND PLANNING COMMISSION - SITE DEVEMPM1NTIT 0RDrW4CE Jeff Goldman, Connnerly & Associates, presented an outline to the Council and Planning Commission o e a t Site Development Ordinance. Subpart 1 was a statement of purposes. Subpart.2 covered permits and it was noted that another level of threshold would be covered by the Conditional Use Permit process in addition to the administrative review process and site development process. Subpart 3 covered grading; Subpart 4 addressed drainage and erosion control; Subpart 5 covered pathways. Under subpart 6, building siting, view protection and ridgeline preservation, it was agreed to change the words 'completely conceal' to 'render inconspicuous'. Under subpart 7, Architectural review for height and color' it was agreed to change the height limit to seventeen feet from fifteen feet. In addition the issue of 'reflectivity' needs to be researched, i.e. what threshold should be used and what impact does the Solar Rights Bill have on the ordinance. In discussing subpart 8 on landscaping, Commissioner Carico suggested site development review for fencing and also suggested the formation of a Land- scape sub -committee as part of site development. The Mayor suggested that the site development cxi ttee should make a recommendation to the Planning Commission on this matter and then it would go the Council for approval. It was further noted that the height of mature plants should be addressed in the site develop- ment ordinance and the rern,; re ent for a written statement of plants be eliminated. Regarding this, the Zoning Administrator would keep a list of plants for informational purposes. -2- CITY COUNCIL MMUES - March 6, 1985 C. STUDY SESSION - CITY COUNCIL AND PIANNING OMtUSSIGN - SITE DEVELOPMENT ORDINANCE (continued) Subpart 9 covered recreational courts, spas and swimming pools and in subpart 10 outdoor lighting was addressed. In this section it was noted that the source of light shall not affect the neighbors and a provision could also be included for panic lighting. Councilmend,Ara Pu rman and van Tamelen left the meeting at 11:15 p.m. Before leaving van Tamelen wmwnte3 that she questioned the separate procedures of administrative review and site development committee review. In her opinion the public notification of these meetings, which would not occur in the admin- istrative review process, provided a good opportunity for the neighbors to get together to discuss potential problems, etc. Under subpart 11 onncerrung driveways and parking, it was noted that it was important to have a good definition of 'driveway' to avoid confusion with private roads. It was agreed that anything serving more than two lots, not dedicated to the Town, is a private road. The final subpart of the proposed site development ordinance covered the issue of exceptions. D. REPORT ON HOUSING ELEMENT FROM PLANNING CONSULTANT: This matter was not discussed due to the lateness of the hour. E. ADJOUIWENT: There being no further new or old business to discuss, the City Council adjourned at 11:45 p.m. to a breakfast meeting on Thursday, March 14, 1985 at 7:30 a.m. with the Trustees of Foothill Collegeand there being no further new or old business to discuss, the Planning Camdssion adjourned at 11:45 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Patricia Dowd, City Clerk -3-