Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout05/04/1981PIANNING EDNMISSION ` Town of Ins Altos Hills 26379 Fremont Road Los Altos Hills, California MUMS OF A REGULAR MEETING Monday, may 4, 1981 Reel 93, Tr. I, Side I, 001-862 The meeting of the Planning C=TLission was called to order by Chairman varTanelen at 7:55 p.m. in the Council Chambers of the Town Hall. A. ROLL CALL AND PLEDGE OF ALLFGIANCE: Present: Commissioners Dochnahl, Kuranoff, Lachenbruch, Stewart and varfrmelen Absent: Commissioners Carico and Rydell Also Present: City Planner John Carlson, Assistant Planner Pat Webb and Deputy City Clerk Pat Dowd B. 1,TW BUSINESS: (continued frau 4/22/81 meeting) 1. lards of Matadero Creek Subdivision, File PM #1-81 a) Intensity of Develogn t The City Engineer presented his report which showed a comparison of the Original lot figures and alternatives for development area allowances. He noted that if the streets, open space and conservation easements were subtracted from the total lot size, there was far less development area. The City Engineer further commented on the proposed Development Intensity Ordinance which would allow for a 44% resi- dential building footprint. 977 Via Ventana, Nick entire profile of the map hal to be covered with lots; econmdc yield should be considered but all the lots may not be necessary. In their opinion Lots 5,6,7, and 8 were totally unnecessary and should be deleted, as well as Lots 19 and 20. The economic loss incurred would be made up by the increased value of the remaining, more desirable lots. Peter Wallace. 27975 Via Ventana, felt that the development was too dense and MIM-- like to see it redesigned with 10-14 lots. He presented his concept sketch to the Planning Commission. Paul Reneau 13149 Burd Lane, encouraged the Planning Camuission to take this opportunity to restrict development intensity to the minimum. PLANNING CDM+IISSION MINNIE May 4, 1981 Page Two B. l.a) Lards of Matadero Creek Subdivision, Intensity of Developnent (continued): Crnnussioners than discussed the City Engineer's proposed alternatives. Mr. LaehenbrUCh stressed the importance of two restraints that must be made: the nunber of units and the intensity of development. The subject subdivision with its proposed 20 lots would mutually support 36 lots. If the nunber of units was limited but the intensity was mt. it would be same as having 36 lots on the property. Mr. Lachenbnuch suggested each lot have one development unit. Mrs. vannanelen expressed the opinion that Lots 5,6 and 7 posed problems and suggested a new design be prepared which eliminated lot 6 and added it to rot 12. Mr. Kuranoff was strongly in favor of strict guidelines regarding design review. He suggested the formation of a oamuittee and noted the importance of the tradition in Town to build a relatively constrained house in a well -protected area. Mr. Kuramff asked his fellow Cammissioners to consider constraining the subject lots even further. Regarding the proposed Development Intensity Ordinance he suggested a 228 rather than a 44% residential building footprint. b) Architectural Control Paul Reneau 13149 Byrd Lane, addressed the Commission regarding architectural control stressing the rural character of the Town and the importance of such principles as harmony and proportion. He felt there should be certain limitations imposed on the size of hares, the colors of homes and fences. He was in full agreement with the idea of an architectural review committee and urged that the Matadero subdivision be carefully scrutinized since it was an example for the rest of the Tuan. Fran Stevenson, 26989 Beaver Lane, suggested the matter of ridge line control should be considered. Frank Saul, 27977 Via Ventana, suggested it was the perfect opportunity to put such guidelines in the CC&Rs and he also recommended that the Planning Cammi.ssion act as the architectural design committee for the subdivision. Mr. Saul further suggested that the street names of the subdivision be changed to reflect more of the history of Ins Altos Hills (Spanish names preferred). Don Young 27665 Via Cerro Cordo, expressed the opinion that he was mt sure the T'awn should be involved with architectural review. Large hones could be built away from ridges and nestled in the landscaping. He also suggested the Camdssion consider the potential problems involved with paths and trails going over each lot. Commissioner Kuranoff noted that out of five communities which were similar to IAS Altos Hills, some had architectural design committees, and requested ordinances from all cities. The five communities were: Woodside, Portola Valley, Saratoga, Monte Sereno and Los Gatos. Commissioners asked staff to collect copies from these five communities of ordi- nances pertaining to design review. Additional background materials worthy of note concerning this subject were Paul Reneau's statement dated July 8, 1980 and the City Engineer's report dated July 18, 1980 PINNING COMMISSION MINUTES May 4, 1981 Page Three B. 1. Lards of Mata3ero Creek Subdivision (continued): Camtissioners then agreed to conduct a field trip to the subject property on Mbrday, May 11, 1981 at 5:30 p.m. During this field trip the following aspects would be carefully considered and studied: 1) intensity of development: each lot would be placed with markers showing where ]ruses would be built. It would also be helpful if City Engineer could point out which lots would be given tennis court approval and where the courts would be built.; 2) road design and how it can be simplified; 3) treatment of ridge area; and 4) review of open space and conservation easements. There being no further new or old business, the meeting was adjourned at 10:40 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Patricia Dowd Deputy City Clerk