The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About05/25/1988PLANNING COMMISSION STUDY SESSION TOWN OF LOS ALTOS HILLS 26379 Fremont Road Los Altos Hills, California Wednesday, May 25, 1988 Reel 126, Side II, Tract I, 000-300 Chairman Yanez called the meeting to order at 6:12 P.M. in the Town Hall Coun- cil Chambers. A. ROLL CALL AND PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE: Present: Commissioners Carico, Emling, Patmore, Struthers and Chairman Yanez Absent: Commissioners Kaufman and Stutz Staff: George Scarborough, City Manager; Bill Ekern, Director of Public Works; Sally Lyn Zeff, Planning Director; Leslie Mullins, Planning Technician B. STUDY SESSION: 41. Proposed Zoning Ordinance Amendments a. Declining Height Envelope, Municipal Code Section 10-1.504 Ms. Zeff referred to Staff Report dated May 20, 1988 informing Commission at the last meeting, the Commission requested that an alternative to the existing declining height envelope regulation in the zoning ordinance be presented, noting the current regulation limits the height of those por- tions of structures in the are adjacent to the setback lines based on where that portion of the structure is located on the lot, noting further that the Subcommittee of the City Council has proposed the elimination of this regulation leaving the height limit for all portions of lots at 27' (with a 35' minimum to maximum height limit). Ms. Zeff informed Commis- sion alternative forms of regulations used or under consideration in other communities: 1) restricting the height a a structure based on where the entire structure is located on the lot, which could be simple and restric- tive as basing the height of the entire structure strictly on setback; and 2) set the height limit for the outer walls of a structure based ont he closest distance of the entire structure to any setback lines as described in k1, but then allow a 1:2 slope from there to a maximum of 27'. Ms. Zeff informed Commission the problems identified with the current declin- ing height envelope would not be addressed by either of the alternatives given. Ms. Zeff informed Commission staff does not recommend any alterna- tive regulation to accomplish the goals stated as the basis for the exist- ing decling height envelope regulation. Ms. Zeff provided Commission with ♦ya copy of an IGC Survey of Zoning Regulations in Santa Clara County. Study session - May 25, 1988 Page Two t Commissioners expressed concern again to staff with regard to the elimina- %rtion of the declining height envelope, noting the ordinance serves a pur- pose to reduce the bulk, etc. Commissioners suggested that staff prepare exhibits, graphs, etc., to help the applicant's understand the ordinance. Commissioner Struthers noted she would be happy to build a model if staff felt that it would be beneficial in helping the applicant to understand the declining height envelope. Commissioners and staff discussed what actions should be taken at this study session, staff noted that the Commission can only review and discuss the proposals presented at the Study Session, and recommended Commission then schedule a public hearing for the next regular meeting on June 8, 1988 for actions on the proposed ordinance amendments. Mr. Art Lachenbruch, 11820 Buena Vista Drive, informed Commission the basic problem with the current ordinances is educating the public, sug- gesting a very logical solution, (20' height allowed at setback, going 20' more into property will allow height of 271)9 thereby requiring different setbacks for single story and two story structures (as a two story has more off-site impact), noting generally the second story structure would be 20' further back into the property than a single story. Mr. Lachenbruch noted an architect should be able to visualize this suggestion easily, noting perhaps staff could prepare a simple drawing to help. Mr. Lachebruch further noted he was very disappointed with the Staff Report prepared, noting both alternatives given in the report are very much more restrictive than what we have currently. 41VMr. Ken Pastrof, The Owen Companies, informed Commission he fears that the suggestions of 20-20 the Town will wind up with homes which would be level at sides and high roof in the middel, noting they may not be architec- turally desirable, suggesting the Town could offer some type of incentive for architects/applicant's with good designs proposed well below the maxi- mum allowed. Driveway Light Fixtures, Municipal Code Section 10-1.504 (h) and 10-1.505 (a) Ms. Zeff referred to Staff Report dated April 21, 1988 informing commis- sion zoning subcommittee recommends driveway light fixtures may extend no more than one foot above the height limit for walls and fences , and it shall be limited to one fixture on each side of the driveway, for a maxi- mum of two fixtures per lot, noting the intent of the amendment is to al- low the placement of light fixtures atop entry pillars without requiring that those pillars be lower than the rest of the fence or wall to which they are attached, the amendment would also permit driveway light fixtures to stand alone in the setback area, but would limit their height to one foot higher than a fence or wall could be in that location, with no more then two fixtures per lot. Commissioner Struthers expressed concern over visibility of the light fix- tures from off site, asking if we could strengthen our policy over [[ visibility mitigation. Commissioner Patmore concurred with Commissioner +Struthers concerns, asking how we currently enforce our lighting or- dinance. Staff informed Commission discusssion this evening should be Study Session - May 25, 1988 Page Three ( directed towaards driveway light fixtures, noting if Commission feels ♦rthere is an enforcement problem, let staff know. Mr. Art Lachenbruch questioned staff what they would do if there were no fence of wall? Indicating the motivation for the ordinance was if you must light, the lights shouldd be only for your own property, not neigh- bors. Mr. Ken Pastrof suggested the Town contact Fire Department and Sheriff De- partment with regard to emergency calls at night, as night driving and locating properties is somewhat difficult due to no street lighting. c. One time exemption from Maximum Floor Area and Development Area Municipal Code Section 10-1.502 (d) and 10-1.503 (d) Ms. Zeff referred to Staff Report dated April 21, 1988 informing Commis- sion it is intended to relive the burden on applicants of paying for the preparation of topgraphic surveys and engineered plot plans for the con- struction of small project such as a deck, patio, or small addition to a room. Ms. Zef£ noted the proposed change would allow a one-time "free" 500 sq.ft. of development area, or 150 sq.ft. of floor ara for all lots, the proposed addition would of course, be required to meet all other pro- visions of all Town Ordinances, including setback and height requirements. Chairman Yanez indicated there is merit to this proposal, but wondered how the Town would keep track of the exemptions. Ms. Zef£ informed Commission we keep files on all applications, which are microfilmed after the project is approved or completed. Commissioner Carico questioned if this proposal would apply to already non -conforming lots. Staff indicated yes for all lots. Commissioner Patmore raised concern over this proposal as to the relation of increase of drainage, with an already existing drainage problem in the Town, as an example we have 3,000 lots x 500 sq.ft. of development area. Mr. Scarborough noted Commission is assuming everything counted towards MDA is impervious. Commissioner Patmore indicated perhaps we should be discussing impervious/pervious. Mr. Art Lachenbruch felt that there is a better solution to the problem described by staff as he does not feel this will resolve the concern, reminding staff and commission that all lots created after 1980 all in- formation relating to luf, slope is available due to the Subdivision Stand Alone Ordinance, noting we should be able to bracket that a 1 luf is al- lowed 5,000 sq.ft. unless the slope is more than 33%, noting most older homes are around 2,500 sq.ft. d. Minor Variance, Municipal Code Section 10-1.1107 (2) There was no discussion on this ordinance amendment, due to shortage of time. MOTION SECONDED AND CARRIED: Moved by Struthers, seconded by Patmore and passed unanimously by those members present to Adopt Resolution setting Study Session - May 25, 1988 Page Pour ` public hearing for June 8, 1988, 7:30 P.M. for review and recommendation o£ proposed zoning ordinance amendments. There being no more time for discussion on these items for Study Session, the Study Session concluded at 7:30 p.m. and the Regular Planning Commis- sion meeting began. Respectfully submitted, Leslie Mullins Planning Technican V