Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout03/10/1993kw Minutes of a Regular Meeting APPROVED Town of Los Altos Hills PLANNING COMMISSION Wednesday, March 10, 1993, 7:30 P.M. Council Chambers, 26379 Fremont Road cc: Cassettes #5-93 (2) 1. ROLL CALL AND PLEDGE OFALLEGIANCE Planning Commission meeting was called to order at 7:30 p.m. in the Council Chambers at Town Hall. Present: Chairman Pahl, Commissioners Comiso, Ellinger, Schreiner, Simmu & Stutz Absent: Commissioner Cheng Staff: Linda Niles, Town Planner; Jeff Peterson, City Engineer; Land Lonberger, Planning Secretary 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 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. None 4. PUBLIC HEARINGS 4.1 LANDS OF MACIAG, 26335 Esperanza Drive; A request for a Site Development Permit for a Second Story Addition. Planning Commission Minutes APPROVED March 10, 1993 Page 2 Ms. Niles stated that there were no additions to the Staff Report and she was available for any questions. Commissioner Schreiner questioned the figures in the Staff Report regarding the maximum floor area as she calculated an increase of 605 with -30 left. Ms. Niles will re- check the figures. OPENED PUBLIC HEARING Ralph Adams, 217 Merritt Road, Los Altos, the applicant's representative, stated that the additional square footage was due to building the second floor addition. They made a two-story entry way which removed approximately another 150 sq. ft. By the removal of those additional square feet it made the net equal to the number on the Staff Report. Commissioner Schreiner stated that she was not as much concerned with the development area as the floor area which seemed to be over. Mr. Adams stated that the floor area was actually reduced because the existing second floor of the house would be reduced by the amount in the entry way which is about 150 sq. ft. Commissioner Sinunu discussed the reduction in the driveway which is shown on the Plan. Mr. Adams did not have a problem with any of the Recommended Conditions of Approval except for the request for the new roofing material should match the old roofing material which is a wood shingle shake. Another condition asks for a fire retardant roofing. He stated that their intent was to re -roof the entire house with a fire proof material. Chairman Pahl discussed the Pathway Committee's request for a Type IIB pathway which he did not see noted in the Conditions. He asked Staff if this was a condition that Staff was requesting to be added. He also complimented the Pathway Committee for providing a drawing of the path. The Type IIB path was explained to Mr. Adams. Brenda Butner, Environmental Design and Protection Committee, discussed existing pines. She stated that the pine trees in the front of the project and one oak tree which is at the end of the existing driveway appear to be in poor condition and suggested an arborist report if they were considering them as part of the screening as they appeared to be in a bad state of decline. Commissioner Stutz suggested wording stating that if the trees were not in good condition that they would be replanted with others. It was mentioned that Condition 4 covers replacement of oak trees, however, the trees in question are pines and only one oak tree. Commissioner Stutz felt that the 30" pine trees were almost at their maturity. Planning Commission Minutes APPROVED March 10, 1993 Page 3 CLOSED PUBLIC HEARING Commissioner Schreiner asked Staff if they were going to request a landscape plan in view of the letter received from the Heimsoths and their concern with privacy of the back yard. The response was that a landscape plan was required and the Heimsoth's concerns could be addressed at that time. It was suggested adding to Condition 4 "that special attention be taken to the west side of the lot". Commissioner Stutz felt that Condition 4 only applied to the oak tree and not to the mature pine trees. She felt that it should be asked that any major trees being removed should be replaced but not of equal size. It was agreed by consensus to modify Condition 4. Commissioner Ellinger asked for clarification of Condition 9 as he did not want to put the trees at risk, either due to traffic along the proposed path or due to construction grading to build the path. Commissioner Stutz was not sure that they should make conditional as the path is in the road right-of-way and if there were additional trees planted, they could be planted inside the property line. She felt that pine trees of mature age would be coming out before long naturally. She felt it was important to get the path in. Mr. Peterson suggested wording of Condition 9 as follows: A Type IIB pathway is required to be constructed within the road right-of-way. If the road right-of-way is not sufficient for the path to adequately get around trees, than a pathway easement shall be dedicated by the applicant to the Town of Los Altos Hills. The driveway shall be roughened where path crosses to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. This would be Condition 9. MOTION SECONDED AND PASSED: Motion by Commissioner Comiso and seconded by Commissioner Stutz to approve the request for the Site Development Permit subject to Recommended Conditions 1 through 8, adding #9 and modifying #4 adding "If a pine, oak or significant trees, etc.; add "and not of equal size"; "Special attention shall be taken to the west side of the lot for screening". AYES: Chairman Pahl, Commissioners Ellinger, Schreiner, Sinunu, Stutz & Comiso NOES: None ABSENT: Commissioner Cheng This item will appear on the City Council consent calendar March 17,1993 Planning Commission Minutes March 10, 1993 Page 4 APPROVED 4.2 LANDS OF ZATPARVAR, 12813 Clausen Court; A request for a Site Development Permit for a New Residence and Pool. Ms. Niles stated that there were no changes to the Staff Report. There was a question regarding the pathway on Clausen Court. The pathway actually comes up on the right side of Voorhees and then turns and goes up the right side of Clausen Court and continues in the back as the cul-de-sac and then on south to another property so it does not affect this property. Commissioner Stutz discussed the intent of the Planning Commission at the time was for the pathway to go up the entire length of Voorhees Drive to connect with the pathway that goes over the road at the top and goes on down to Miraloma Drive. There is also a pathway that comes in along the north side of the old Voorhees property to Voorhees Lane. Commissioner Sinunu asked how well traveled was Voorhees Drive. It was thought that there were only a few properties; possibly 7. Commissioner Schreiner had a general question regarding this project and the Miramou project which are sub division lots that have come in within the past five to ten years and yet the Planning Commission was seeing lot unit factors of less than one. It was stated that there could be a recommendation to solve this problem and she would like the Staff's thoughts on that. Chairman Pahl felt that this was a general question and did not relate to this specific site development application and should be something to be considered separately, perhaps under new business. OPENED PUBLIC HEARING Nader Zatparvar, 410 Juanita Way, Los Altos, agreed with all recommended conditions as proposed by Staff. It was suggested by the Planning Commission to add a condition stating that there is a pathway easement along Voorhees Drive. Commissioner Ellinger asked Mr. Zatparvar if he understood the discussion regarding the path and its location and what they would like to do. It was stated that the pathway was already there and they were just trying to make it legal. Commissioner Stutz stated that the path is shown on the map and it had been missed previously because it was in the road right-of-way and not on the property. 4 It was decided that the suggested condition regarding the pathway was not needed. Planning Commission Minutes APPROVED March 10, 1993 Page 5 Chairman Pahl complimented Mr. Zatparvar on the design of the house. He felt that it was very rare that a house was designed to the lot and it appeared from the design that he designed the house to the lot and Mr. Zatparvar should be complimented. Brenda Butler, Environmental Design and Protection Committee, had a question regarding the grading plan in that it states that all existing fruit trees on the site shall be removed and all oak trees within the area of grading shall be removed except as shown to remain. It was not clear to her which trees were staying and which were to be removed. Ms. Niles stated that all trees inside the stake marks were to be removed. There was a concern about some oak trees are close to the house. She felt that Condition 5 should handle any damaged or removed trees in question. Staff will provide a red line plan showing trees being removed. Ms. Butler stated that it was just pointed out to her that on the legend on the left hand side next to the bottom symbol with the one (1) in it indicates the oak trees to remain which she had not noticed before. At first glance it appears that there are two trees remaining in the grading area and all oak trees outside the grading area remain. Commissioner Ellinger asked if at a later date would they not be reviewing a landscape plan anyway. He did not feel the fruit trees needed to be considered at this time as they were not heritage oaks. He felt that they have adequately addressed the oaks and he felt that they could make the decision on the fruit trees later as Staff and the applicant would like to review it. CLOSED PUBLIC HEARING Chairman Pahl stated that he supported the standard conditions as they adequately addressed the site. Commissioner Sinunu agreed and he felt the fruit trees to the extent that fruit trees would be there or not, they would not block the view of the house from any place that is relevant so there was no reason to keep them or any particular trees there for that reason. MOTION SECOND AND PASSED: Motion by Commissioner Ellinger and seconded by Commission Schreiner to approve with the conditions noted by Staff. AYES: Chairman Pahl, Commissioners Sinunu, Stutz, Comiso, Ellinger & Schreiner NOES: None 06V ABSENT: Commissioner Cheng kor Planning Commission Minutes March 10, 1993 Page 6 APPROVED This item will appear on the City Council consent calendar March 17, 1993. 4.3 LANDS OF GARROW, 13910 Mir Mirou Drive; A request for a Site Development Permit for a New Residence, Pool and Spa. Ms. Niles stated that she had nothing further to add to the Staff Report and Mr. Peterson was available to answer questions regarding the right-of-way. Commissioner Schreiner questioned the basement area being exempt from being counted as floor area. She asked if this area is still exempt even under the interpretation that the Council gave March 3rd. Ms. Niles stated that the interpretation was to allow anything that was scheduled for the Planning Commission to go as they had always interpreted the ordinance. Commissioner Comiso clarified the address of the property. The correct address is 13910 Mir Mirou Drive. OPENED PUBLIC HEARING Tobin Dougherty, 790 Hyde Street, Palo Alto, architect, discussed the Staff Report and questioned the common driveway easement. The Staff Report indicated that all 3 lots use the common driveway easement. It was his understanding that the flag lot as well as the present house was to be serviced by that easement and property before them was to be serviced off Mir Mirou Drive. Ms. Niles responded staring that she would show Mr. Dougherty the design of the map that shows that all three of these parcels are to access off the common driveway easement. This was a condition of the original parcel when subdivided. Mr. Dougherty displayed graphics of the project in response to the last paragraph of the Staff Report regarding appearance of the three story element, the amount of grading proposed, and the fact that the project is being proposed close to the maximum floor area and maximum development area allowed. It was also unclear to him if the statements in the report were positive or negative. Commissioner Ellinger discussed the cut and the export being 3,100 c.y. which was calculated at 310 truck loads. He asked Mr. Dougherty how he was going to deal with the export. Mr. Dougherty felt the contractor could better answer that question. He could answer why it was 3,100 c.y. and did understand that this was one of their biggest dilemmas. Mr. Dougherty further discussed the basement, day lighting and raising the basement floor by 24"; not raising the house and not changing the height limits. By this raise he Planning Commission Minutes APPROVED March 10, 1993 Page 7 could eliminate 400 c.y. of dirt, however, in doing this that area would then be subject to floor area calculation. Chairman Pahl asked if he eliminated the pool, how many cubic yards would he eliminate or raising the garage area 24" so there would be less cut, then reducing the floor area size of the main floor. What Chairman Pahl felt Mr. Dougherty was saying was that he has to dig it deeper into the ground so it would not count as floor area so they could have a larger house on this difficult site. He felt that was the dilemma, trying to put a large house on a difficult site. Chairman Pahl asked if this house was appropriate for the lot. The Commission discussed the house and design to fit the lot rather than both being squeezed on the lot and the appropriate process to have 310 truck loads of export going through neighborhoods. It was felt that this would affect the roads. Chairman Pahl stated that the Commission was aware that they had met the ordinances and if they hand not, Staff would have informed the Commission. Now the question was while they have met every ordinance with regard to this application, the next question would be if this is the appropriate house for the site, not if this is the appropriate house for Los Altos Hills. In discussing the pool area, he thought the pool area must have 700 c.y. So by increasing the house up 24" you could eliminate 400 c.y. and if they were to eliminate the pool area, they have now taken care of 1,100 c.y. or at least eliminate the pool area they would eliminate 700 c.y. or a quarter of the export. Bob Garrow, 13912 Mir Mirou Drive, applicant, discussed the design of the project, the need for a pool, and the export of cut. It was his understanding that the landscaping and house plan was in conformance with all ordinances. He stated that the project was flexible and he did not want to remove the pool. It was noted that he would be living in the house. Commissioner Comiso discussed the times when exporting was necessary. She stated that the ordinances stress was that they put houses on the land with the minimal or the least amount of disturbance to that land. She felt that they all have to be conscience of what disturbance taking out this amount of cut does to that piece of property. It was not to her 310 truck loads of earth off the property, it is what are they going to this piece of land and does it have to have that much cut and that much disturbance to it. Commissioner Schreiner agreed with Commissioner Comiso in that it was really an excessive amount of cut. She asked Mr. Peterson if there was any particular drainage problems associated with this project. Mr. Peterson stated that one of the things he encourages as far as drainage plans in Town is to maximize sheet flow as much as possible. When you maximize sheet flow it kallows the water to run across the ground in a manner that is not concentrated. It does Planning Commission Minutes APPROVED March 10, 1993 Page 8 not erode, it does not get to the street and the city storm drain system as quickly. He further discussed the process. Mr. Garrow asked why are they finding out about this situation with cut now. It was asked of Staff if there was anything ever said about the amount of cut on this project. Ms. Niles stated that at the original site analysis reviews of this project, the cut, height, bulk and mass were all discussed. The applicant had a slightly different design originally (about a year ago )then nothing was seen for over six months on the project. The applicant had recently re -started the application. The Staff had pointed out the standards of the code to the applicant and this was the design that they have proposed which met most of the standards. She stated that the only concern in having the Commission look at this project was to get their opinion on whether it meets the site development standards for those issues that she had pointed out. In the site development ordinance, the section regarding disturbance to the site reads, "The location of all structures should create as little disturbance as possible to the natural landscape. The amount of grading, excavation, or fill shall be the minimum necessary to accommodate proposed structures, unless grading is proposed to lower the profile of building (she felt this was the intent in this case) provided that at the completion of the project the visual alteration of the natural terrain is minimized. The removal of vegetation and alteration of drainage patterns shall be the minimum necessary to F. accommodate the proposed structure." Ms. Niles stated that it was determined that in fir' placing the house as far as they could in the slope and lowering it, they were re -grading in a natural manner around the outside of the structure. It was felt that all applications need to be reviewed by the Planning Commission for whether they meet the standards as written. Commissioner Schreiner stated that the Town was working on a Design Guideline Handbook presently and one of the illustrations shows where ever possible they would like to have the garage come in on the side rather than the front. She asked Mr. Dougherty if that would be possible. He stated that this was discussed, however, it would not be possible. Commissioner Comiso discussed east elevation, three story elevation, east front elevation, and the view of the garage as shown on Plan. She stated that whatever happened to this project, it would be going to the City Council and it has been Council that has suggested that the Planning Commission not have a three story elevation. It makes a house look very bulky and very big. In describing a three story elevation it was stated that if you could preserve three stories looking at the house, it will be taken as a three story elevation. She asked the applicant if he could explain to the Commission how, looking at the plan in front of them, this was not a three story elevation and would not give that appearance when the house was finished. Planning Commission Minutes APPROVED March 10, 1993 Page 9 Mr. Garrow discussed the design, windows and landscaping. Mr. Dougherty discussed shades, shadows and the size of the house He felt that this house was less in size than neighboring homes and he could reduce the cut. Mr. Dougherty disagreed with the three story feeling. Commissioner Comiso in discussing the plan stated that she could see three sets of windows and three doors below that as a garage. She stated that there were two different heights of windows and a third height for the doors. Commissioner Edinger discussed the enormous use of windows and the facade moving in and out. He agreed with Mr. Dougherty in that it breaks it up and makes it architecturally interesting. The building as positioned on this lot looking up at it is roughly 35' so the house will look big. He discussed the possibility of the same building on a larger lot that you would be driving down to would not have as much impact. He felt it was a question of the site and not an issue of the design. His concern on the grading besides the trucking it out was erosion. He asked what the roofing material would be. Mr. Dougherty understood the Commission's concern with grading and is willing to work with the Planning Commission. Regarding the roofing material, it would be like a cement, reinforced product that looks like slate and the color would be a grayish tan 4 combination. CLOSED PUBLIC HEARING Commissioner Stutz stated that the two previous projects from the February 24th meeting were tabled because they had a basement and she felt that before they made a decision on this project they should have their direction clear and perhaps do all three projects at the same time. She did not feel they should take a basement and pass it through when they already have two tabled waiting for direction. Chairman Pahl stated that their direction was given to them which was "anything that is in the process will go under the old rules'. When the two previous projects return, they will be applying the old rules to them also. Putting the basement issue aside, he asked Commissioner Stutz if that was the only problem with this house. Commissioner Stutz answered no. She noted that the architect made the comment that they are on a sloped lot and it is a flat house being placed on a sloped lot and this was something the Commission does not want to see in Town. She felt that the direction of the swimming pool, if it remained in the back, would have to be changed 90 degrees anyway just to cut down on the back grading a bit. One thought would be to reverse the house 180 degrees and bring it in off the easement road. She did not feel that this was the proper house for this lot. Planning Commission Minutes APPROVED March 10, 1993 Page 10 Commissioner Simmu stated that he felt that the house was the wrong shape for the lot and was concerned not only for the size of the house but for the size of the development area that they plan to put around it including the pool. His concerns regarding the development areas was that the lot was in a built up neighborhood and would not object to it as much if it were in a rural neighborhood. There is a large pool requiring a large amount of excavation, the pool is going into the side of the hill and there appears to be more grading then necessary for the pool and for the spa both because of the size of the pool and the direction of the pool. His concern regarding the development area was because it looks like it is being developed to the max, both floor area and development area. It appears that they are fitting barely within the guidelines. Commissioner Ellinger stated that he liked the building and was not troubled with the development area and it was within the guidelines. His concern was for the appropriateness for this building on this lot. He wished it was a flatter lot. Commissioner Schreiner thought that because of the slope there might be a way to step this down and she was concerned with the amount of excavation especially in view of Ms. Niles' comments regarding the ordinance Commissioner Comiso did not have a problem with the MDA or MFA as they fit within the guidelines which takes into consideration the slope on the lot and how big the 4 project is. She was concerned with the amount of cut being removed from this lot. Chairman Pahl had concerns regarding the pool fitting the lot and questioned whether the lot could support the pool and he felt that this would be a wonderful house on a flat lot. He did not feel the house was appropriate for the site and he questioned whether this lot could support a pool. He felt that this was a good project for site analysis. Commissioner Comiso asked Ms. Niles if the pool was turned so that it went with the land, would it require less grading as she felt that the lot had enough space for a pool if redone. Ms. Niles stated that turning the pool would eliminate some of the cut, however, it looks as though you may need to move the house forward slightly although this would have a problem with the floor area calculations. Even so, you could possibly move it with the contours and reduce it slightly and then you would not have to move as far into the hill. She also stated that there might be a possibility for moving a part of the house forward and the part where the garage is located, keeping that back. She felt that the applicant was willing to go back and look at some kind of re -design to reduce the export. Commissioner Stutz discussed the large flat area which would take considerable grading. There was a disadvantage that the original contours do not show up easily. Planning Commission Minutes APPROVED March 10, 1993 Page 11 MOTION SECONDED AND PASSED: Motion by Commissioner Ellinger and seconded by Commissioner Comiso to continue for re -design. AYES: Chairman Pahl, Commissioners Stutz, Comiso, Ellinger, Schreiner & Sinunu NOES: None ABSENT: Commissioner Cheng The Site Analysis process was explained and it was suggested to the applicant for further direction. 4.4 LANDS OF NORHEIM, 27261 Sherlock Road; A request for a Site Development Permit for a Major Addition and Right -Of -Way Realignment. Ms. Niles introduced this item stating that the applicant would be eliminating the major addition on the lower part of the project at this time. There were changes to this application because there were some discrepancies with the lot lines which they would like to have worked out before reviewing the major addition on the lower level. The addition that is being proposed for the Commission's review would be just the kitchen remodel and the realignment of the right-of-way as noted in the Staff Report. Any improvements in the right-of-way would be reviewed through a separate public hearing process at a later date. Staff did not have any problem with the minor addition for the kitchen which is about 247 sq. ft. Commissioner Schreiner asked Ms. Niles if they would not be discussing the improvements on the road right-of-way. She asked if she was talking about construction on the road or a retaining wall. It was suggested that Mr. Peterson address these issues. Mr. Peterson stated that at this time there were no road fees conditioned on the project. The existing Sherlock Road that is below the residence is used by two to three residence who actually open the chain and exit that way. The road is chained in two places. Sherlock Road without the chains could perhaps be driven on although there were a few bad areas on the road. The reason that it is chained is that the Town code states that it cannot remain private if it becomes a through road. Commissioner Schreiner asked at what point would he require improvements and who would pay for them. Mr. Peterson stated that any improvements that would be required would need to be installed by the property owners on Sherlock Road. Sherlock Road is a private road and the Town's policy is that they do not accept roads to be public until they are brought up to Town standards. In order for Sherlock Road to be brought up to Town standards there would be a considerable amount of money spent along its entire length; including Planning Commission Minutes APPROVED March 10, 1993 Page 12 a massive retaining walls. Town standards include two lanes, probably in the neighborhood of 18' to 20' wide of asphalt plus shoulders. Mr. Peterson, without analysis, could not make a judgment on any lot splits or minor subdivisions in this area. Commissioner Sinunu asked if the dedication of the road could be all on one side of the road. He asked if the road right-of-way had to be 60' wide and could the road right-of- way be confined to one side of the road and including the road. Mr. Peterson stated that according to the code and the right-of-way policy a road with this number of houses on it would require a 60' right-of-way. In answer to the second question, he stated that normally the road is placed right in the center of the right-of- way. In those situations normally what you have is a different owner and a different parcel on each side of the street. This was an unusual situation were the road actually cuts through the center of the lot and so the Sherlock/Norheim parcel exists also below Sherlock Road. This is also an issue of fairness to place the road as close to the center as possible. The second issue was normally you would allow enough room on each side of the existing road in case you would need to make any improvements. In this particular case there is plenty of room to build Sherlock Road if that ever came to pass. On the Site Map the right-of-way is not centered exactly over the road way. In this situation since there were not two owners involved and since you would take a retaining wall if it was ever built on either side of the road way, there is nothing lost by not having it centered and what it does is to allow the applicant to construct the addition without penalizing them for no reason. It maintains the 40' setback from the new right-of-way line and still achieves all of the road right-of-way characteristics that the Town needs. Commissioner Ellinger asked if the road needed to be kept chained continuously to have this maintenance of a private road or could you chain it one day a year the way Stanford University does it. Mr. Peterson believed it had to remain chained. Commissioner Comiso referring to the property right before the Norheirri s, she asked what this road change would do to that piece of property. She believed that property was for sale. Mr. Jefferson stated that the right-of-way needs to more or less match the right-of-way on each side of the parcel. When you have an existing 25' and trying to match it with a 60' they are obviously not going to match. The existing house that is actually south of Sherlock Road that is shown on the site plan, looks to be roughly 12' off the existing road right-of-way and is in the set back no matter what. Commissioner Comiso mentioned that she was interested in the property above the one Mr. Peterson was referring too. Mr. Peterson stated that the proposed relocation of the road right-of-way does not have an impact on that property. He also stated that in the road right-of-way policy it was noted that some of the factors that need to be considered were ; the effect of the conformity of the existing lots by the requirement of any additional right-of-way. U Planning Commission Minutes APPROVED March 10, 1993 Page 13 Because of the length of Sherlock Road and because of all the different situations that they have, it would take a very exhausted study OPENED PUBLIC HEARING Alex Bergtraun, 2337 Oregon Street, Berkeley, architect, discussed the discrepancy on the property line that was between the Norheim property and the Trabucco property that was just discovered which will be dealt with before the major addition appears before the Planning Commission. This discrepancy did not have an effect on the road right-of-way, however, did have any effect on the fact that they were coming before the Planning Commission for a major addition at the same time and they way they designed the major addition was to be outside the 30' setback. Now the 30' setback is questionable. He discussed the drive up to the property from Moody Court and someone visiting the Trabuccos coming up the other side. He felt that the whole story regarding giving a r60' right-of-way actually becomes a discussion in theory. He discussed the kitchen remodel and how the road right-of-way goes through part of the living room and what that does with a 40' setback was anything they were to do with the house without changing the right-of-way they are in trouble. He stated that they tried to be as sensitive as they could to the neighbors in that the center line of the right- of-way existing lines up closely with the center line of the new right-of-way they are proposing right at the property line. They were careful about what kind of turning radius and looking at the contours to make sure that physically this would work CLOSED PUBLIC HEARING Commissioner Ellinger stated that this property was so unique that he thought having the right-of-way where it was and having this road going right through the center of the property, you could make a case that this was an undo hardship situation. He felt this could be supported on a number of courses of logic. He felt that what the applicant was suggesting on moving the right-of-way was only logical, however, he was disappointed that they did not know where the real property line was. Commissioner Stutz stated that she did not have an objection to the kitchen remodel, however, she did not want to sign her name to a map that they only approved part of without it being red lined or other ways to show exactly what it contains. Before she would vote on this, she would have to see the correct map. Ms. Niles stated that she would provide the Commission with a red lined map immediately and if the applicant signs the map, Staff will make the change. 4 Planning Commission Minutes APPROVED March 10, 1993 Page 14 MOTION SECONDED AND PASSED: Motion by Commissioner Ettinger and seconded by Commissioner Comiso to approve as submitted without the major addition, the kitchen remodel and right-of-way realignment. The pathway recommendations will be discussed when the major addition returns. AYES: Chairman Pahl, Commissioners Stutz, Comiso, Ellinger, Schreiner & Sinunu NOES: None ABSENT: Commissioner Cheng This item will appear on the City Council consent calendar March 17, 1993 NEW BUSINESS None 6. OLD BUSINESS 6.1 Discussion of the Zoning code Interpretation regarding calculation of floor area, relative to basements forwarded to the City Council. Ms. Niles stated that the City Council made an interpretation on how to calculate floor area according to what the wording in the ordinance says now. They did not change the wording in the code, only changed the interpretation to mean: when a retaining wall is incorporated into a structure or a dwelling and earth is back filled against the perimeter wall of the dwelling, then that area can be excluded from counting as floor area. She stated that in the code as it is written now it can be interpreted that if the back fill is at any structure that is attached to the building and back filled, then that area does not count as floor area. That was why they were seeing a lot of the projects come in with retaining wall connected to the house on both side but extending way farther and farther away and yet allowing that to be excluded from counting as floor area since the retaining wall was the structure attached to the structure. Ms. Niles stated that on the Garrow project, the basement was acceptable because they also along with the interpretation indicated that they would still be excluding floor area calculations for garages and that project is back filled on all sides except for the entrance of the garage. This still meets the code. She further stated that if it was underground and not seen, it would not count as floor area. The Commission requested that the uncounted portion be mentioned in the Staff Report. She stated that Council did direct, in addition to allowing those items that have already been scheduled for Planning Commission to go as they had been designed, Staff to come back to the City Council with a proposal either an urgency ordinance or a regular ordinance regarding new wording for floor area and basements. Lin Planning Commission Minutes APPROVED March 10, 1993 Page 15 %W The Commission further discussed different possibilities for floor area and basement situations. It was stated that the sub committee consisting of Barbara Tryon, Bill Siegel and Linda Niles meet that afternoon and Ms. Niles will present a written report from that meeting back to the sub committee so they could present it to Council and then Council will direct that they come back to either the Planning Commission or to an urgency ordinance. Lands of Hall and Reddy which were tabled at the last meeting will be on the agenda for March 24,1993 and both were exempted by Council, although Hall redesigned to the Town standards. 6.2 Discussion of the Housing Element of the General Plan continued. This item will be continued to the March 24th meeting. A copy of the updated Housing Element was provided to the Commission for their review and input. 7. APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES OF FEBRUARY 24,1993 MOTION SECONDED AND PASSED BY CONSENSUS: Motion by Commissioner Ettinger, seconded by Commission Comiso and passed by consensus with the following changes: Page 1, under Roll Call, deleted Absent as all Commissioners were present; page 5, paragraph 4, corrected spelling for Art Luchenbrook's name; page 14, under APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES OF FEBRUARY 10, 1993, should read: "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." 8. REPORT FROM THE CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF MARCH 3, 1993 8.1 Planning Commission Representative Chairman Pahl and Commissioner Schreiner attended the City Council meeting. The following items were discussed: the new Los Altos Garbage Company rates; Zoning Code Interpretation regarding calculation floor area, relative to basements; Lands of Harker and that the second building site in the conservation easement may not be built on; reviewed rejected paths on tract maps to be picked up; Housing Element; basement deliberation by the Planning Commission will be on hold per City Council. It was pointed out that projects having drainage concerns were always reviewed by the City Engineer. Planning Commission Minutes APPROVED March 10, 1993 Page 16 9. REPORT FROM THE SITE DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE MEETING OF MARCH 9, 1993 9.1 LANDS OF BEN-ARTZI, 27800 Via Feliz; A request for a Site Development Permit for a Pool, Spa, Deck, Landscape, Hardscape and Lighting. This item was pulled from consent and will appear on the March 24, 1993 Agenda as a Public Hearing item. 10. ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned by consensus at 9:40 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Lard Lonberger Planning Secretary