Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout11/02/1964T A CITY COUNCIL TOWN OF LOS ALTOS HILLS MINUTES OF A REGULAR MEETING November 2, 1964 The Regular Meeting of the City Council of the Town of Los Altos Hills was called to order by Deputy Mayor Wm. Ross Aiken, Monday, November 2, 1964, at 7:56 E. M. at the Town Hall, 26379 Fremont Road, Los Altos Hills, California. ROLL CALL: PRESENT: Councilmen Bowler, Fowls, Henley Deputy Mayor Aiken ABSENT: Mayor Clayton MINUTES: October 19, 1964. ACTION: Adopt Minutes of November 2, 1964 as submitted. 1. Foothill College - Letter dated October 23, 1964 requesting Council action committing future operation of the Stonebrook/ College signal system to the premise outlined. In the absence of the Mayor, this matter was deferred until the November 16t Council Meeting. AXNOUNCEMENTS: 1. Inter -City Council, Santa Clara County Dinner Meeting, Thursday, November s, 19644, Almaden Country Club, 7:30 VARI ANCES: 1. Packard, Martin E. (V-204-64) - Reduction in Setback Requirement. City Manager read the recommendations of the Planning Com- mission. Two petitions of objection from surrounding property owners were read. In discussing the justifiable grounds for variances, the City Attorney referred to Zoning Ordinance No. 78, Section 13:60, Restrictions on Action, stating that conditions (A), (B) and must each be found. Mr. M. Packard presented his case, justifying his reasons for application of the 7 -foot variance. lv_ VARIANCES: Packard (Cont'd.): Comments opposing the granting of this variance were heard from Messrs. Hall and Gampell, and Mrs. Gampell. Following thorough discussion, it was the opinion of the Council that the application did not meet the requirements of the Zoning Ordinance in that. there was not a proper showing of hardship. ACTION: That the application of Martin E. Packard (V-204-64) for a reduction of setback requirement of seven (7') feet be denied. MOTION; Henley; SECOND: Fowle; VOTE: Passed. unanimously. 2. MacLean, Neil A. (V-207-64) - Reduction in Setback Requirement. ACTION: - That the variance request of Neil A. MacLean (V-209-64) be approved, in accordance with the recommendations of the Planning Commission. i�` MOTION: Fowls; SECOND: Bowler; VOTE: Passed unanimously. 3. Steinacher, Gerald F. (V-206-64) - Overhead Utilities. ACTION: That the variance request of Gerald F. Steinacher (V-206-64) be approved, in accordance with the recommendations of the Planning Commission. MOTION: Bowler; SECOND: Henley; VOTE: Passed unanimously. BUILDING SITE AFFROVAL: 1. Riddle, John B. (BS!. -?-64) 1 lot. Engrs. - State of Calif. ACTION: That the request of John B. Riddle (BSA -7-64) for Building Site Approval of Lot 12, Tract 3306, be approved. MOTION: Henley; SECOND: Bowler; VOTE: Passed unanimously. OTHER BUSINESS: 1. Councilman Bowler, who attended the October 26th Flashing \. Commission meeting, reported on the results of the discussion regarding the purposes and objectives of Ordinance No. 99• Three points were raised by the Planning Commission; 1) Whether the very real expenditures of surveying land was justifiable. The Planning Commission realized there were map errors during an earlier period, but felt the Ordinance placed a burden on a great number of people when only a few surveys were incorrect. It was the Planning Commission's opinion that there should be a procedure, where there appeared to be a creditable map, a route that did not involve com- plete subdivision treatment. It was discussed by the Council "What appears to be a good map is difficult to define and no engineer will say what appears to be a good map unless he surveys the ground. Survey requirements of other localities were discussed: _ Some Cities have no requirements, but responsi- bility for accuracy is on the owner �-' Some require a survey with the issuance of every building permit Some, responsibility of the Building Inspector. It was discussed that contractors have points on the ground by which .they locate the house on the lot (although it was pointed out it is a calculated risk and not a 100% situation). If accuracy is not questioned in the contractor's placement of the house, why is it questioned on a lot that comes under Ordinance No. 99? The City Manager explained accuracy is not the only reason for this ordinance, but that many surveys, prior to the incorporation of the Town, were by recorded metes and bounds and that record of surveys were made without dedications, etc., these situations being corrected by Ordinance No. 99• Discussion continued that if the iron markers exist so that the setbacks can be determined, that the requirements of Ordinance No. 99 might be waived. On the other hand, it was discussed - who makes the decision that these are the proper points? The Council did not believe that it is up to the Staff or that it was good for an owner to sign an affidavit attesting to its accuracy, but that the civil engineer was the correct source. If the burden is too great to decide, put the burden on the Council who can then outweigh the cost. `v -3- OTHER BUSINESS: Ordinance No. 99 Cont'd.: The Council expressed the desire to hear from the Planning Commission their recommendations for possible modifications to the Ordinance. ACTION: That the Planning Commission is requested to develop and recommend to the Council a form of variance to be applied to Ordinance No. 99 in the case where (a) A subdivision map exists, which has been prepared in accordance with the State Map Act and current standards, where (b) Building site presented is proven to be as actually shown on the map, and where (c) Creditable markers of the corners that affect the setback requirements for building have been located, That a variance might be granted waiving the re- quirements for resurvey of tha land and resubmittal of a map. MOTION: Bowler; SECOND: Fowls; VOTE: Passed unanimously. 2) The Planning Commission questioned - If, at the time of subdivision, a full set of improvements in accord- ance with present requirements were made (pavement, paths, etc.), then ten years elapse and the pavement is cracked, is the applicant for building site approval legally held for improvements. It was discussed that improvements can be required. 3) The Planning Commission referred to Section 2, Excepti ;ns, Par. (b) of Ordinance No. 99 and questioned that if building site approval were granted and the owner did not build within two years, would he be required to apply for building site approval again. The City Attorney explained this was the intent of the ordinance, and the owner must go through the procedure and resurvey. However, it would be a very simple matter for an engineer to find his own points and resurvey his own map. Possibly a waiver on a two year term would be in order if there was sufficient reason. Councilman Bowler said he was not against this Section, but. 1 felt it deserved modification. -4- P OTHER BUSINESS: Ordinance No. 99 Cont'd.: ACTION: r,1 That the Planning Commission be requested to ` study the application of Section 2 (b) of Ordinance No. 99 with the view to recommending whether there is an appropriate form of relief that can be granted on the lapse of two years after the resurveying and restaking of property. MOTION: Bowler; SECOND: Fowle; VOTE: Passed unanimously. Dputy Mayor Aiken requested that a continued discussion of Ordinance No. 99 be held at the November 16t Council meeting and that the City Manager extend a written invitation to the Planning Commission to attend,with special notation of the foregoing discussion. 2. Councilman Fowle brought to the attention of the Council the eyesore condition of Horseshoe Lane, a public road but having no homes on it. Two solutions were suggested: a temporary closure of the road, or the installation of "No Parking" signs, enforceable by law. It was pointed out, however, a public hearing would be necessary in order to close a public road. 4CTI ON: That the City Manager be instructed to have the existing litter cleared away and "No Parking" signs placed on Horseshoe Lane. MOTION: Fowle Motion was lost for lack of a Second as a resolution of the City Council is required in order to take such action, being in accordance withthe provisions of Section 10.3 of Ordinance No. 89. The City Attorney was instructed to prepare a resolution to be acted upon following approval of warrants. WfRRANTS: 1. Bills, in the amount of TEN THOUSAND, TWO HUNDRED FIFTY-FOUR DOLLARS and Sixteen Cents ($10,254.16), were presented by Councilman Fowls. ;CTI ON : That bills, as presented, be approved; that the City Clerk be authorized to draw the appropriate warrants. MOTION: Fowls; SECOND: Henley ROLL CALL: AYES: Bowler, Fowls, Henley, Deputy Mayor Aiken NOES: None ABSENT: Mayor Clayton -5- a RESOLUTIONS: 1. Resolution No. 289, a Resolution of the City Council of the Town of Los Altos Hills Amending Resolution No. 233, was ` introduced and read in its entirety by the City Attorney. .CTI ON: Adopt Resolution No. 289 as read. MOTION: Fowle; SECOND: Henley ROLL C"LL: AYES: Bowler, Fowle, Henley Deputy Mayor .iken NOES: None ABSENT: Nayor Clayton Deputy Mayor Aiken requested the City Manager to instruct the Deputy Sheriff to make periodic inspections so that the Resolution may be enforced. ADJOURNMENT: MOTION: Henley; SECOND: Fowle MEETING ADJOURNED: 9:50 r. M. NEYT REGULAR MEETING: Monday, November 16, 1964, at 7:45 P. M. at the Town Hall. ul ly submitted, S„L T City Cle k 11/2/64-mam Town of s Alt s Hills