Laserfiche WebLink
Allan Epstein, 23828 Ravensbury, inquired about the size of light wells. <br /> Eric Clow, Planning Commissioner, asked if a house was stepped into a hillside <br /> was the part exposed counted as floor area and the rest not counted. <br /> Ron Perrier, Burlingame, noted that he was the architect for a project in Town <br /> and they were hoping for some flexibility regarding the basement ordinance in <br /> particular as it related to allowing basements not directly under the house. He <br /> also supported allowing basement within.setbacks. Concerning their project they <br /> were hoping to lower the garage and cover it with landscaping as a more visually <br /> pleasing approach to the house. <br /> Council agreed to send an ordinance to the Planning Commission for review and <br /> recommendation which included the following: basements can go under the <br /> house, pool, secondary dwellings and earth (i.e. wine cellars) but can not exceed <br /> the footprint of the buildings. Basements can not go in setbacks. Daylighting is <br /> allowed if not facing street. Fenwick and O'Malley agreed that if a basement <br /> was put under developed space it would count as development not floor area but <br /> Casey and Cheng disagreed with this opinion. It was agreed that the City <br /> Attorney would draft two ordinances reflecting each opinion for the Planning <br /> Commission's review. <br /> 5.4 Discussion of adoption of policy, procedures and guidelines for the <br /> • implementation of Sanitary Sewer Reimbursement Agreements <br /> Council had before them a draft of policy, procedures and guidelines for sanitary <br /> sewer reimbursement agreements. Staff s recommendation was that Council <br /> approve this document to give clear guidance to applicants on this issue and to <br /> assist staff. <br /> Bruce Askari, 27830 Elena Road, noted that he was putting in a 3 1/2 mile sewer <br /> extension which involved fifteen homes allowing easements. He disagreed with <br /> some of the statements in the proposed policy. He did not believe that <br /> reimbursement agreements should be submitted for approval only after the final <br /> direct costs of construction had been determined. He recommended allowing <br /> submittal with reasonable estimates for the project in hand. Mr. Askari also did <br /> not agree with the section that stated "For gravity sanitary sewer mains, future <br /> users are all those properties that have frontage along the gravity sewer main and <br /> can connect directly, via a single lateral. . ." He believed that whomever <br /> benefitted from the sewer should pay for it. In addition, Mr. Askari <br /> recommended that attorney fees be included in the direct cost of construction and <br /> the agreements should be for more than fifteen years. <br /> Ken Olcott, 12950 Brendel Drive, did not believe the proposed policy <br /> encouraged cooperation among neighbors. While he agreed the reimbursement <br /> agreement should be based on actual costs, he believed there should be <br /> conceptual agreement (a letter of intent from the Town) before applicants spent <br /> April 19, 2001 <br /> Regular City Council Meeting <br /> 5 <br />