Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout02/24/1993APPROVED 41v Minutes of a Regular Meeting Town of Los Altos Hills PLANNING COMMISSION Wednesday, February 24,1993,7:30 P.M. Council Chambers, 26379 Fremont Road cc: Cassettes #4-93 (3) 1. ROLL CALL AND PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE Planning Commission meeting was called to order at 7:30 p.m. in the Council Chambers at Town Hall. Present: Chairman Pahl, Commissioners Cheng, Comiso, Ellinger, Schreiner, Sinunu & Stutz Staff: Linda Niles, Town Planner; Jeff Peterson, City Engineer; Lam Lonberger, Planning Secretary Chairman Pahl asked that the meeting be adjourned in memory of Denny Spangler, former Los Altos Mayor, who passed away on February 12th. 2. PRESENTATIONS FROM THE FLOOR Persons wishing to address the Commission on any subject not on the agenda are invited to do so now. Please note, however, that the Commission is not able to undertake extended discussion or take action tonight on non-agendized items. Such items will be referred to Staff or placed on the agenda for a future meeting. None 3, CONSENT CALENDAR Items appearing on the Consent Calendar are considered routine and will be adopted in one motion, except for any item removed for separate consideration elsewhere on the agenda. The Chairman will ask the Commission and the audience for requests to remove these items. fire"M 4. PIJBLICHEARINGS 4.1 LANDS OF REDDY, 11011 Magdalena Road; A request for a Site Development Permit for a New Residence. 4 Planning Commission Minutes February 24, 1993 Page 2 APPROVED Ms. Niles introduced this item stating that the proposal was for the demolition and reconstruction of a new two story single family dwelling unit on an existing 1.00 acre lot which is located off of Magdalena Road directly adjacent and to the west of Neary Quarry. The average slope of the lot is 22.9% with a Lot Unit Factor of .724. The access to the house will be from the existing steep driveway off of Magdalena. Two story poles have been placed on the existing house that indicate the maximum height of the structure. The structure will be visible from Magdalena Road and is slightly visible now. One of the suggestions was to add a condition that would require that additional landscaping be planted on the front slope that will help block the view of the two story house, however, she felt that anything on that lot would be visible from Magdalena. The new footprint extends an additional 30' to 45' further than the existing house up the back steep slope towards the west property line and the quarry. There will also be a back patio extending another 2' to 14' into the back slope from the house. A retaining wall is proposed to be constructed at the edge of the back patio in heights varying from approximately 10' to 14' in height. The house is proposed with two stories above grade and a 1,284 sq. ft. garage and shop in the basement which is exempt from floor area calculations. Grading will be 2,000 c.y. and 2,000 c.y. of export. The maximum height of the proposed structure from natural or t finished grade is 26', and the overall lowest to highest height is 35'. Staff is recommending that the project be continued to allow the applicant to do a redesign in order to move the house further forward on the lot or reduce the height of the retaining wall in the back or allow a little more room behind the house and the retaining wall. The other issue that was a concern was the grading for the driveway entrance in reference to how it would affect the existing mature trees and she thought this could be resolved. The neighboring property owner is concerned that if the trees are damaged that they be replaced and she felt that Mr. Reddy was willing to replace trees if that were necessary. Staff is still recommending that an arborist report be provided. Staff would appreciate the Commission discussing the issues of the back patio width and the 3 story element. The 3 story element on the back would only be viewed from the slope . There is an appearance of a 3 story element looking at the garage, however, it is not actually 3 stories since the house does step back. These are some issues that the Planning Commission has brought up on other projects. Commissioner Comiso asked Ms. Niles how she would like them to address the 3 story element. Ms. Niles stated that she wanted to know if the Planning Commission felt there was a problem with the view of the 3 stories from the garage. Ms. Niles did not feel it could be seen from either of the neighboring properties and did not feel it would %' be visible from Magdalena because of the steep up slope. Commissioner Comiso stated Planning Commission Minutes APPROVED February 24, 1993 Page 3 that numerous times they have discussed 3 story elements and so has the Council. It was Commissioner Comiso's feeling that the discussions had been in vain since there still was no proposal to amend the Zoning Ordinance so as to prohibit the appearance of a 3 story facade. Commissioner Comiso asked how Staff wanted them to look at this 3 story appearance. Ms. Niles stated that the appearance of 3 story from the front of the garage is not obtrusive and she did not feel that it needed to be looked at. Ms. Niles asked, however, that the Planning Commission address her concern for the project at the rear and for the house being pushed into the slope so much that a retaining wall of between 10' and 14' was required at 2' to 14' from the rear wall of the house. Ms. Niles recommended that the house be moved further forward on the lot. If the house is brought forward on the lot there may be a requirement for counting the floor area in the back of the house. Commissioner Schreiner clarified that the square footage in the garage and shop area was not counted in the MFA and a portion of the square footage at the back of the house was not counted. She asked how that complied with the Town ordinance which states that "when a retaining wall is incorporated into a structure and earth is back filled against the retaining wall, any floor area which is at least 6' below the back fill when the distance is referenced from the extension, the contour line from the ground along the perimeter of the structure is not counted". Ms. Niles stated that this is counted from the retaining wall and she had provided the Planning Commission with a handout from f BKF that explains calculating floor area and this has been the way the Town has #A/ interpreted this section of the code for many years. If there is a retaining wall that connects to the house on one side that goes around and connects on another side and the retaining wall is back filled 6' or more, the area in the building is exempted from floor area calculations. It was mentioned that the deeper you dig into the hillside, the more you exempt. Ms. Niles was asked by Commissioner Schreiner how many 14' retaining walls there were in Town. Ms. Niles did not have the information. Chairman Pahl discussed page 4 on the plan. The south elevation shows a maximum 35' from the absolute bottom of the structure to the peak of the roof and the fireplace goes above the peak of the roof. It was his understanding that the Town ordinance stated the 35' was measured from absolute bottom to absolute top of the structure. Ms. Niles stated that it goes to the roof peak. The chimneys and some other appurtenances are allowed to extend over the 35'. OPENED PUBLIC HEARING Sena Reddy, 11011 Magdalena Avenue, the applicant, discussed the design of the house and felt that they were building the house within the Town's ordinances. He had no difficulty with any of the conditions, however, there were a few corrections made to the Planning Commission Minutes APPROVED February 24, 1993 Page 4 conditions. Ms. Niles stated that the Conditions reference an incorrect road and required sewer. She has modified the conditions. Wendell Rosco, 12234 Tepa Way, distributed to the Commission from Terrasearch a profile of the property in relationship to Magdalena which continues across the property back to the quarry and showing how the house would be cut in to the site. He stated that Mr. Reddy had no problem with the retaining wall as they have it and moving the house back in order to accommodate more flat area for the yard. He discussed the design of the house regarding trying to reduce the bulk. Commissioner Schreiner asked Mr. Rosco if they considered moving the house forward so there would not be so much cut and so much damage to the hillside. She also asked if he felt that Mr. Reddy might want to have some development area left so that if he wanted to put a concrete patio around the pool he would be able to do so. She suggested perhaps using turf block in some areas which only counted at 50%. Mr. Rosco stated that they had considered moving the house forward, however, Mr. Reddy's requirements for footage were very important to them and he would like an even bigger house than Mr. Rosco has designed They have pushed the house into the slope to try to accommodate Mr. Reddy to the fullest so he could get the most out of his piece of property and get the best mode of life out of his investment. He further 4 discussed previous projects similar to the Reddy's. Regarding the development area, Mr. Rosco stated that he had discussed this with Mr. Reddy and he is happy with the lawn area rather then concrete around the pool. He felt that they were totally amenable to using turf block. He cannot cut down on the floor area on the house but could cut down on development area by using turf block on the driveway, although there was a question regarding the use of turf block in the past. They discussed the possibility of the next owner wanting more development area and Mr. Rosco felt the design was complete as is. Commissioner Sinunu discussed the area around the back of the house, the height of the retaining wall and the average distance between the back of the house to the retaining wall. Mr. Rosco stated that in one area, if it were cost effective, he could use the wall of the house for the retaining wall itself and not have any access around that part of the house. No windows are being planned for that area. Chairman Pahl noted that in William Cotton's January 21 report, Mr. Cotton's consultant recommended a 40' building setback from the Quarry rim. Chairman Pahl agreed with Mr. Rosco that the retaining wall is the same as the building wall in that they are both going to be problems with the site and they are the same type of structure. There appears to be a 32' setback from the Quarry to the building. He presumed that it was between a 26' to 28' distance between the property line and the retaining wall. L Mr. Rosco understood that the retaining wall was 30' away from the property line and `' in addition to that there is an additional 20' on the other side of his property line. Planning Commission Minutes APPROVED February 24, 1993 Page 5 ow Mr. Rosco felt that they were actually more like 50' from the rim of the quarry and Cotton required 40' from the rim. Robert Saich, 11000 Magdalena Road, a neighbor, had no objection to the project. He has a long piece of property across the street with a lot of room for parking and the trucks in the past have parked on his side of the road. When he exits his driveway he cannot see. He would appreciate not having any heavy equipment parking on his side of the road. Moon Ha, 11021 Magdalena, next door neighbor, asked to see plans to review as she had just received the notice. CLOSED PUBLIC HEARING Commissioner Schreiner was concerned about the floor area that is not being counted on this basement. The ordinance leads her to believe that three sides should be filled up to the 6' level. She had spoken to Art Luchenbrook regarding her concerns. He felt that the ordinance was very clear as to how this should be carried out. He felt that it was actually addressed in the ordinance where it says "from the extension of the contour lines from the ground alongthe ner+Meter of the structure". She had also spoken with several previous Planning Commissioners and they also agreed. She felt that the intent was never to allow day lighting for this large an area. What they wanted to allow were window wells, a T window well, never glass sliding doors. Commissioner Comiso stated that she had called Staff regarding this and nowhere does it state that it would have to be back filled on three sides, however, this was an interpretation used when they were discussing calculating floor area for eaves and porches where they were enclosed on three sides and had a roof. Commissioner Schreiner's second concern was that this structure was so close to the quarry that taking 2,000 c.y. out of the hillside and putting the house closer to the quarry could possibly be hazardous. She asked what would be the level of water in the quarry and would this water level be above or below the basement. The response was that it would be way below the project basement. Commissioner Sinunu had similar concerns as Commissioner Schreiner in how the floor area was counted. It appeared to him that the more you dig into the hillside, the more earth you take away, the more you can keep from counting your floor area. It did not seem within the spirit of the ordinance. Commissioner Comiso stated that she was on a sub committee with Dot putting together the Design Guidelines Handbook. One of the things they spoke about in that committee was keeping the development close together and one of the ways you do this in order not to have drainage or run off problems, was to dig into the land. She Planning Commission Minutes APPROVED February 24, 1993 Page 6 discussed previous applications that have allowed these basements and have not counted them. She stated that after looking at the floor plan, this is the minimum that is allowed in Town on a lot with a Lot Unit Factor of over .5 without a Conditional Use Permit. She did not feel this was an oversize house. She did have concerns regarding putting this house against the hill and adequate lighting in the back of the property. She stated that the basement was not counted in the MFA which has been policy, however, this subject is being planned for discussion later in the meeting. Commissioner Stutz discussed large basements; having three separate Staffs that have interpreted the basement section of the code; three story appearances; and the view from Magdalena looking up which will make the house appear even larger. She felt that if the house was placed on the flat area rather than building a new flat area, at least you would not be putting two pads on this one property, which does not maintain the naturalness of the grades and it would also give the house a back drop and not appear so tall. Commissioner Schreiner suggested a change in the driveway, instead of making a straight road off of Magdalena half way up the lot which is the most visible driveway they could have, considering bringing it in the middle of the lot and swing it clear around and make it a circular road on the lower lot. By doing this you would mitigate the appearance of the driveway. She felt that this lot was not appropriate for the design of this house. She also discussed the house and a basement on La Loma Road and La Loma Court. She provided the Commission with a handout showing a drawing of the 4 basement and discussed that this was the intent of the ordinance. Commissioner Sinunu discussed being at the City Council's meeting February 17th and his comments at the meeting regarding Lands of Turbott and being constrained by the zoning statute. The City Council stated that if there was a problem with the statute, the Planning Commission should comment on it to the City Council. Commissioner Stutz suggested a motion to not look at this property tonight for any additional time as well as item 5.1 regarding calculating basement area. She wanted the Commission to get further direction from Council and if something cannot be reached within the next two weeks then she would suggest that Council put a moratorium on basements until a decision could be reached. This would be a motion to table. MOTION SECONDED AND PASSED: Motion by Commissioner Stutz and seconded by Commissioner Comiso to table this project while seeking direction from Council regarding clarification of basement interpretation. Commissioner Comiso in discussing the motion stated that there was currently a moratorium on grading until April and she would not like to see the applicant thrown back and forth from Council to Staff and back to Planning Commission indefinitely. She felt this might be the way to get the point across that the Commission needs clarification and would like to take care of this immediately. Planning Commission Minutes APPROVED February 24, 1993 Page 7 4 Commissioner Ellinger commented on the retaining wall stating that he felt it was a safety hazard because of the height of the retaining wall and it runs relative to the quarry rim. He discussed William Cotton's report regarding the property being on an active fault 1,100' away and right next to the quarry and felt there was a seismic safety problem with the design. His second concern was the ridge and the safety of anyone walking in that area. He would prefer to have the project continued for a redesign rather than tabling. Chairman Pahl stated that he did not necessarily disagree with the basement discussion, but would speak against the motion to table because he believed that even if you were to take the basement away, assuming the basement was not there, he would still send this back for redesign. He felt that there were certain houses that are just not appropriate for the lots that they are on and this is one of them. He did not feel this project was appropriate and does not feel it was fair to the applicant that they table this application, have the basement issue resolved and then have them return. At that point he would still vote for a redesign. He felt it was more appropriate to send it back for redesign now. Chairman Pahl called for the vote. AYES: Commissioners Cheng, Comiso, Schreiner, Simmu & Stutz NOES: Chairman Pahl, Commissioner Ellinger This item has been tabled while seeking direction from Council regarding clarification of the basement interpretation and calculation of floor area. This will be forwarded to the City Council for consideration as an urgency item. 4.2 LANDS OF CARTER, 24000 Oak Knoll Circle and 12101 Oak Park Court; A request for a Tentative Map for purposes of a lot line adjustment for 24000 Oak Knoll Circle and 12101 Oak Park Court. Mr. Peterson introduced this item stating that the proposed lot line adjustment involves two lots, owned by individual parties, and created by Phase 1 of the McCullouch subdivision. Both parties consent to the proposed lot line adjustment. The net acreage of each lot will not change, however, the revised LUFs, MFAs were shown in the Staff report. Staff was concerned about how driveway access to Parcel l would be impacted by the reduction of lot frontage along Oak Knoll Court. The City Engineer and Town Planner made a site visit and have determined that a driveway may be accomplished from the remaining lot frontage. The lot line adjustment as proposed conforms to the Town's zoning and building codes as well as the Subdivision Map Act. Staff recommends the Planning Commission recommend approval of the proposed lot line adjustment. Planning Commission Minutes APPROVED February 24, 1993 Page 8 ow Commissioner Schreiner discussed the constraints on Lot 1 because of the human habitation setback and asked Mr. Peterson where they envisioned the building site would be located. Mr. Peterson suggested addressing the question to the applicant. OPENED PUBLIC HEARING Russ Carter, 940 Saratoga Avenue, San Jose, discussed the area on lot 1 where the building site would be. The Council restricted the house size to 4,500 sq. ft. and lot 2 to 5,000 sq. ft. Neither property has been bought for an actual residence. Mr. Carter also discussed the lot line adjustment request as shown on the plan and reasons for the request which would better benefit the land and the privacy of each lot. CLOSED PUBLIC HEARING Commissioner Schreiner asked Mr. Peterson to discuss the steepness of the driveway. He stated that it was always advantageous to have a flatter driveway. On other applications the Commission had expressed concern about driveways reaching between 15% to 20% slope. He stated that at the bottom of the ravine where the line of oak trees is, in order to access the building circle on the other side of the ravine, the applicant would need to put a culvert through there and put in the driveway over it. Then there will have to be some fill in. By doing that, it will raise the driveway up somewhat and would allow them to flatten the driveway out a bit. Commissioner Ellinger asked Mr. Peterson to clarify the MDA and MFA figures as shown on the Staff report. Mr. Peterson apologized for the incorrect MFA numbers taken from the Tentative Map calculations. The correct figures for MFA, existing, are 4,500 sq. ft. for Lot 1 and 5,000 sq. ft. for Lot 2. The MDA figures are correct as shown. Commissioner Sinunu asked Mr. Peterson why the swale would have to be filled at some point. Mr. Peterson responded, stating that if a driveway was not raised above that level, a good rain might wash it out. Commissioner Comiso stated she would be voting for the lot line adjustment, one reason being that the lot line adjustment takes care of the grove of trees which makes it unbuildable on 30' of either side of it. MOTION SECONDED AND PASSED: Motion by Commissioner Comiso and seconded by Commissioner Ellinger to recommend approval of the lot line adjustment to City Council. AYES: Chairman Pahl, Commissioners Cheng, Comiso, Ellinger, Schreiner, Sinunu, & Stutz NOES: None ,9 Planning Commission Minutes APPROVED February 24, 1993 ( Page 9 Brief break at 8:30 p.m. 5. NEW BUSINESS 5.1 Planning Commission interpretation of Zoning Ordinance Section 10-1.208 Basements; and section 10-1.223 Floor Area Calculation, Julie and David Hall Ms. Niles introduced this item stating that this is a request for the Planning Commission to review an interpretation of the code. There is not a specific application before the Commission and there are several different situations shown in the diagrams in the Staff Report. Somewhere in the applicant's written documentation it does reference a project that will be coming to the Commission. We are not looking at that project at this time, so please disregard and just look at the different situations individually. Chairman Pahl asked the Commission if they all agreed that basements should count as something; whether they count fully as floor area or whether they count them partially as floor area based on certain conditions. There was some disagreement. He asked that if a basement is completely below grade, it should not count and some were in agreement that it should not be counted if it cannot be seen. The Commission discussed a possible change in the ordinance. They felt that they needed to look at the intent of the ordinance. It was mentioned that this ordinance has been under study and discussion for the past several months with a lot of ideas from other towns like Portola Valley and Woodside that were good. Other towns such as Los Gatos should be looked at also. They discussed very constrained lots, very small lots and oversized projects that needed to go down with a basement. Commissioner Ellinger discussed when a basement is living space versus a basement for storage. He felt that the ordinance was originally set up so basements did not count as floor area and was intended for storage space to make the house more serviceable and would reduce the bulk of the house. He also discussed the very large basement garages that may be 20' to 30' deep and not impact the land above ground. All the ordinances and laws are confusing. He felt Los Altos Hills defines the ordinance more like Los Altos. He felt that at most times they appeared in agreement. He discussed Condition A from the Staff Report being enclosed on three sides as being a classic case of a basement, in this case it is being shown as a garage and anything beyond that falls into a gray area. He stated that he felt basements are a good idea and there were some circumstances that they should not count at all. He discussed some applications which try to stretch the ordinance by major amounts of daylighting, daylighting on two sides, and drive-through capabilities which are going beyond what the ordinance intended. Chairman Pahl discussed that the original intent of the ordinance was to create storage space and for a very steep lot to be designed into the hillside; the purpose was to allow �, parking a car underneath. This creates a three story look, however, and this is beyond Planning Commission Minutes APPROVED February 24, 1993 Page 10 4 the scope of this discussion. He felt that it was never the intent by the people who drafted the statute to create living space. He asked at what point do you affect the environment by building oversized basements. The Commission discussed the effect on the environment and neighbors by having an oversized basement versus having a house 125' long. Commissioner Schreiner discussed reduction of bulk and mass with a basement and she does not see that happening. What she does see are projects maxing out on the top and putting in a basement. Commissioner Comiso discussed basements versus living area under the ground and why people are maxing out on the property. She felt that maybe the numbers are wrong. Commissioner Ellinger discussed where to draw the line. If a basement was only 1,000 sq. ft. and put a 5,000 sq. ft. house on top, there would probably not be a problem even though it is big enough for a bedroom and a bath. On the other hand, if this was like the Black Mountain Road project with 7,500 sq. ft. of basement and 7,500 sq. ft. on top, it would not fit the intent, however, would fit within the ordinance. Commissioner Ettinger suggested a possible concept: you could tell someone that if they have a basement in their plan that is like the Condition A basement, a three wall, bordered basement, up to 1,000 sq. ft., there would be no change off their development, extra MDA if they want it. If they are going to build a basement beyond 1,000 sq. ft., a habitable basement, more like Condition B, you should count that but not as strongly as you count first floor living area, maybe count it at 30%. His rationale was that at one time a second floor was counted at 44%. The point was that it encouraged a second story rather than spreading the house out. The feeling at the time was that this was less intrusive and better for the General Plan. In summary, his concept was that a portion of the basement could be free, another portion could be some charge on the MDA but not counted at full rate, and then define those two conditions. Chairman Pahl stated that the one thing he did not like about the ordinance was that it encourages a three story element and a way to violate their two story rule. It was mentioned by Commissioner Comiso that a three story element concept did not appear to be in writing. Ms. Niles stated that the Commission was provided a memorandum from Brian, Kangas, Foulk which included a Staff Report prepared by Bill Ekern in 1991 and does reference the issue of the three story appearance. It was noted that there was no restriction in the code that states that you cannot have the appearance of a three story facade; the height limit is 27' and two story. Commissioner Stutz mentioned that the Council was the one that passed the 27' height and the Council felt with the 27' height it t was short enough not to have three stories within that height. v Planning Commission Minutes APPROVED February 24,1993 Page 11 6 It was felt that the ordinance does not address these issues and does not address Condition C in the Staff Report. The ordinance needed to be more specific. Julie Hall, 26070 Newbridge Drive, discussed issues that needed to be addressed and when they purchased their property they had a very clear understanding of what could be done. She requested this item be addressed and resolved in a timely manner as tabling only delays the process. Commissioner Ellinger discussed with Mrs. Hall her understanding of the basement ordinance and when a basement is not a basement. She felt that was not something she could address; what she could address was what was within code. She stated that they were told that garage space had always been allowed underneath the house and that was never counted as it was a way to reduce the building pad and reduce the mass of the house. She felt that if it worked for a garage space it should be for any space. She felt that this was a positive planning measure. Commissioner Ellinger discussed when a basement is not a basement. Mrs. Hall asked why day lighting out a basement was presumed to be a negative way of building a basement. Commissioner Ellinger stated that he had no objection, however, it was felt that there was a general objection to day lighting a basement. If he had an objection to day lighting it would be that if you took that day lighted area and then directly above it placed the first floor and directly above that, the second floor and your roof, if it is not screened from off site it will look like 3 4 stories. Mrs. Hall started to discuss her project design and the Commission expressed concern. The discussion was only for interpretation of the code and not to hear her application. Mrs. Hall further discussed that full basements make a house structurally sound and much less prone to movement during an earthquake. Commissioner Stutz discussed Mrs. Hall's letter of February 21st, third paragraph, regarding Section 10-1.223 Floor Area Calculation. In discussing the letter, it was pointed out again that the Commission was not reviewing her project. Further discussion included concern not over whether a basement is built but rather whether the basement floor area would be counted as floor area. It was again expressed that the Commission did not want to discuss the Hall's application or make reference to their application. Mark Sandoval, 885 San Antonio Road, Los Altos, Architect, was asked to discuss his interpretation of the ordinance. He discussed his letter dated February 19th which included illustrations as previously discussed by the Commission. His presentation included a larger version of the three illustrations. Condition A, 12581 Miraloma Way; Condition B, 13660 Golden Hill Court; Condition C, 26751 Almaden Court. OAW Planning Commission Minutes APPROVED February 24, 1993 Page 12 4 Commissioner Sinunu stated that the ordinance had two requirements; having more than one half its height, measured from its floor to its ceiling, below the average adjoining grade. It also states that it shall mean a space partly or wholly underground. He stated that if you have ground separated from the wall of the building, it is no longer underground; it is neither partially or wholly underground. Again he stated that there were two different conditions in Section 10-1.208. Mr. Sandoval stated that the he wanted to correct a few items previously discussed. First, the fact that if a project would go two stories down and excavate and make a tunnel down to China, that all that space should be excluded and habitable. The 1991 Uniform Building Code prohibits such types of developments based on demonstrations and light and access. The UBC also requires access, egress for direct access from a basement space. It use to be a storm window or something, however, it now has to be egress. Therefore, any sort of basement other than storage which would be considered for mechanical reasons only, has to provide outside access. Technically, the access should not go through a garage as an access point for habitable space. He also provided illustrations of a three story element project. Mr. Sandoval felt that the intent of the ordinance was to conform the house to the land form; to create a compatible arrangement utilizing the natural features of the site and also to reduce bulk. He thought, if possible, the Commission could look at the individual applications before them in regards to the intent of the ordinance. Ms. Niles asked the Commission to read the last paragraph of the February 19th letter while she left to pull the files being discussed. Ms. Niles stated that if she was coming in and reading this ordinance it would mean that the area that can be exempt from floor area that is incorporated into the structure and is 6' or more underground is within the perimeter of the building footprint. She would not exempt the area that has the retaining wall 10', 2' or 1' out from the building perimeter. Ms. Niles stated that as Mr. Sandoval has pointed out, this is not how the Town has interpreted the ordinance for numerous years. Commissioner Ellinger stated that what Mrs. Hall and Mr. Sandoval have done was to make something clear which was unclear before and he felt that they probably would have to argue this ordinance to Council. He stated that all applications that they have reviewed stand on their own merit and must be looked at lot by lot and design by design. Mrs. Hall and Mr. Sandoval have also made it clear what the issue is and how you can read the ordinance in a way that he had not read it before. Mrs. Hall stated that it was suggested that they appear as a case in point because Staff had faced this question so many time and there have been so many interpretations which was something they did not realize. Planning Commission Minutes APPROVED February 24, 1993 Page 13 4 MOTION SECONDED AND PASSED: Motion by Commissioner Comiso, seconded by Commissioner Ellinger and passed by consensus to forward this item to Council as an urgency item for interpretation of zoning ordinance Section 10-1.208 basements; and section 10-1.223 floor area calculation. 5.2 Discussion of the Site Development Committee decision on Lands of Chiu. Ms. Niles reported on the Site Development Committee decision stating that at the meeting there were several residences present, Mr. and Mrs. Chiu and their landscape architect. The discussion included the driveway modification, fencing and the landscaping. It was determined that the landscaping had already been approved and that the fencing was not. The driveway modification with two entrances was not approved. At that meeting the driveway entrance was anticipated to be redesigned as agreed to by the neighbors and property owners on the site that afternoon and then they would inform Staff what was agreed upon before construction of the driveway. All was completed and the house finaled. The landscape planting will be completed soon. They do have modifications to the drainage plan that are very necessary that will be done in conformance with the request by the City Engineer. At that time they will be returning with a request for review of the second driveway entrance. The problem with the first plan was that they had the double driveway entrance and that the driveway entrance came across an open space easement that had a relinquishment of access designation on the map. They will be redesigning the driveway access to enter in an area that does not have a relinquishment restriction of access. Mr. Ellinger, 28520 Matedero Creek Lane, felt that Ms. Niles report was accurate. He was not aware of the drainage situation until he was hiking up the path behind his neighbor's house. He felt that there was a substantial amount of water coming through a drain line there and entered onto the combination path and emergency road flowing over and behind his neighbor's place. It was hardly what you would call dissipating the water on the property. He would like it to come back to have a discussion regarding the second driveway access point and moving it as he felt there were numerous neighbors who would attend. 5.3 Discussion of Summer Meeting Schedule of the Planning Commission. Ms Niles stated that the City Council at the last meeting made a motion to cancel both meetings in August and if the Planning Commission wished to also cancel both meetings in August the community would know six months or more in advance. MOTION SECONDED AND PASSED: Motion by Commissioner Comiso, seconded by Commissioner Ellinger and passed by consensus to cancel both Planning Commission meetings in August. Planning Commission Minutes APPROVED February 24,1993 Page 14 4 6. OLD BUSINESS 6.1 Discussion of the Housing Element of the General Plan will continue. Commissioner Sinunu has the Housing Element Draft and requested more time to work on it. It was agreed by all to discuss this item at the next Planning Commission meeting. APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES OF FEBRUARY 10, 1993 MOTION SECONDED AND PASSED: Motion by Commissioner Comiso and seconded by Commissioner Sinunu to approve the minutes with a change to page 6, paragraph 7, 3rd sentence, to read "Commissioner Schreiner stated that there were only a few elevations that looked like a three story facade and maybe it was not far enough forward and she asked if the applicant would consider flattening the roof for a lower profile." AYES: Chairman Pahl, Commissioners Sinunu, Cheng, Comiso & Schreiner NOES: None ABSTAIN: Commissioners Ellinger & Stutz 4 8. REPORT FROM THE CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF FEBRUARY 17, 1993 8.1 Planning Commission Representative Commissioner Sinunu stated that the City Council was very interested in details as to why the Planning Commission approve or disapprove any item. Council member Dauber had presented him with a list of questions; four questions on Turbott and eight questions on Harker which she wanted him to address before Council. 9. REPORT FROM THE SITE DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE MEETING None 10. ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned by consensus at 10:35 p.m. in memory of Denny Spangler. Respectfully submitted, LaniLonberger 4W Planning Secretary