Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout10/14/1992Minutes of a Regular Meeting APPROVED Town of Los Altos Hills PLANNING COMMISSION Wednesday, October 14, 1992, 7:30 P.M. Council Chambers, 26379 Fremont Road cc: t-assettes 1% -JZ (3) 1. ROLL CALL ANDPLEDGE OFA J,EGTANCE 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 Absent: None Staff: Linda Niles, Town Planner; Jeff Peterson, City Engineer; Land Lonberger, Planning Secretary rw 2. PRESENTATIONS FROM THE FLOOR 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. 3.1 LANDS OF MAYLE, 26895 St. Francis Drive; A request for a Site Development Permit for an addition, driveway relocation and entry columns. Chairman Pahl asked if anyone wished to have any item removed from the consent calendar. Commissioner Comiso requested to hear this before Public Hearing. Ms. Niles introduced this item stating that the subject property is a somewhat rectangular lot of 1.005 acres with an average slope of 21.9%. The lot unit factor is .75. The existing home is a one story structure with a detached garage. The application is for the addition of another living area under the existing one story house to be accomplished by digging under the current living area into the site and providing a new driveway location to enter the new garage under and behind the existing house. The current driveway enters the existing garage on the east side of Planning Commission Minutes APPROVED October 14, 1992 Page 2 the house from St. Francis Drive. The new garage location and new driveway will be accessed from Alejandro Drive on the west side of the lot. Two driveway entry columns are proposed at this location within the property and out of the right-of- way. The addition as designed will not block existing views from any surrounding properties since the addition is being accomplished underneath the existing dwelling unit and the height is not being increased. The Fire Department reviewed the project and had no additional conditions. The Town's geologist William Cotton and Associates have reviewed the geotechnical study for the project and has recommended approval of the project with conditions for the grading and construction of the home. It has been reviewed by the City Engineer and has been conceptually approved. A final grading and drainage plan will be required to be submitted and approved by the City Engineer prior to issuance of any building permits. Commissioner Comiso questioned cut and fill and Ms. Niles replied that there would be only minor cuts and fills. OPENED PUBLIC HEARING Bill Maston, Architect, 384 Castro Street, Mt. View, agreed with the Staff's recommended conditions. He was asked by Commissioner Comiso if any trees were impacted and he replied only one old walnut tree; no oaks. He also proposed to stake trees and if any were lost he would replace in kind. Ruth Buneman, Environmental Design and Protection Committee, noted that there were three young trees not on plan. She marked them on the plan and advised the Commission that they were larger than 6 inches. CLOSED PUBLIC HEARING Commissioner Comiso discussed fencing of trees for their protection and she would like fencing checked by Staff. MOTION SECONDED AND PASSED: Motion by Commissioner Comiso and seconded by Commissioner Ellinger to approve the application with recommended conditions and modification of Condition 8 to read "Town Staff and Environmental Design and Protection Committee must inspect the fencing and the trees to be fenced prior to commencement of and during grading." AYES: Chairman Pahl, Commissioners Ellinger, Schreiner, Simmu, Stutz, Cheng & Comiso NOES: None 1J Planning Commission Minutes APPROVED October 14, 1992 Page 3 4.1 LANDS OF YU, 12000 Emerald Hill Lane; A request for a Site Development Permit for Landscape and Hardscape (continued from September 9, 1992). Ms. Niles introduced this item stating that the application was reviewed by the Commission at their meeting of September 9, 1992 and continued to allow the applicant to return with a landscape plan that more clearly conformed to the landscape plan that was submitted for conceptual review at the Site Development approval stage for the dwelling unit. That plan showed an orchard in front of the house which helped break up the appearance of the house from Prospect and Emerald Hill Lane. Ms. Niles stated that the applicant has resubmitted a plan that shows an orchard on the front slope of the lot to be either apple or pear, or a combination of the two, to be planted in a 15 gallon size. The applicant's representative had been asked to review the option of planting larger specimen trees in the orchard in an attempt to provide more screening of the house from the roadways sooner. The applicant's representative will discuss this option at the meeting. Staff had contacted Ruth Buneman of the Environmental Design and Protection Committee to discuss the issue of the appropriate size trees to require to be planted for the orchard. Ruth advised that it was usually preferable to plant fruit trees in a smaller size and to plant them in the bare root stage as soon after Christmas as possible. The previously proposed scattering of valley oaks in front of the formal row of liquid amber proposed along the driveway arrival court is being deleted and the orchard proposed instead. The pathway is still being required to be replaced and repaired where needed prior to issuance of final occupancy. The energy dissipater proposed on the far west of the project will be extended to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. The recommendation by the Site Development Committee that the applicant plant 24" box oaks instead of 36" box oaks has been left in as Condition 3, however, Staff was unsure as to whether the Commission had felt that 36" box trees were appropriate. Commissioner Simmu asked if the plan showed the correct number of trees. The response was yes, 17 trees are shown. OPENED PUBLIC HEARING Dan Tuttle, Landscape Architect, 2687 McAllister, Sausalito, discussed planting young trees which should grow at a rate of 9" to 12"a year. He stated that there were oaks that were relocated and shown on the plan by Prospect Avenue. He stated a 15 gallon tree is between 4 to 5 years old. Fruit trees could reach 30' if not pruned although they are usually between 15' and 20'. He defined mature height as the height a tree could reach. He also discussed using a drip system to conserve water. Planning Commission Minutes APPROVED October 14, 1992 Page 4 mi He discussed what was proposed at the previous meeting versus what they are proposing now, showing more trees being planted with the addition of two more not shown on the plan. The photo montage was presented as requested and discussed in length. Mr. Tuttle stated he was willing to work with the City Engineer regarding drainage problems on Emerald Hill Lane as required in Condition 4. Commissioner Comiso noted that she had asked for the photo montage at the previous Planning Commission meeting and was very concerned with mitigating the view of such a large house. She felt that the fruit trees would not reach 20' to 30'. Commissioner Schreiner did not feel the orchard would mitigate the view of the house and felt that there needed to be a cluster of trees on the perimeter to shield the house. She also stated that the orchard would not mitigate the view of this house and felt that conifers should be scattered around the site in clusters. Commissioner Stutz asked about the type of trees proposed and disagreed with the mature height of fruit trees as explained by Mr. Tuttle. She also felt that the trees should not be planted as close to each other as proposed and she suggested that the trees be placed 15' to 20' apart. Ruth Buneman, Environmental Design and Protection Committee, discussed landscape screening from Prospect and noted that there were no conifers to help screen the house, however, there were some existing small live oaks. She suggested black walnut, and canary island pines could be used for screening. It was Mrs. Buneman's opinion that something evergreen needed to go along Prospect if screening was the issue. CLOSED PUBLIC HEARING Commissioner Comiso noted that at the last meeting she had asked about liquid amber being deciduous and had asked what would screen the house in the winter. She also stated that drip irrigation did not always work. Commissioner Comiso felt that the view house would not be adequately mitigated by the landscape planting as proposed. After discussion and prior to a motion, the Commission asked the applicant if he would be agreeable to a continuance to allow time to redesign the landscape plan to adequately address the Planning Commission's concerns. The applicant stated agreement to a continuance. MOTION SECONDED AND PASSED: Motion by Commissioner Comiso and seconded by Commissioner Stutz to continue for re -design to include an irrigation ,, plan. Planning Commission Minutes APPROVED October 14, 1992 Page 5 AYES: Chairman Pahl, Commissioners Schreiner, Simmu, Stutz, Cheng, Comiso & Ellinger NOES: None This item will be first on the agenda for the October 28, 1992 Planning Commission meeting. 4.2 LANDS OF MOVASSATE, 12660 Zappettini Court; A request for a Site Development Permit for landscape, lighting and driveway modification. Ms. Niles introduced this item stating that the landscape plan had been submitted and reviewed at the Site Development Committee meeting of September 15, 1992 and was approved with the requirement for the pathway to be cleaned up and repaired (to include the area at the sewer line) with the new pathway improvement materials; to roughen the driveway where the path crossed it; that planting and irrigation not be allowed in the right-of-way and that both be placed at least 5' away from any on site pathway; that the temporary irrigation currently in the right-of-way be removed and a landscape bond and irrigation bond be required to ensure planting and maintenance of the landscape and removal of the temporary irrigation prior to L release of the bond; that the deck in the west side yard setback be removed; that the foundation in the setback be no more than 4' in width and less than 6' in height; that the drainage plan be re -reviewed with the City Engineer for determination of alternative designs that would allow for sheet flow opportunities; that the oaks on the south east side of the house at the outdoor patio be saved and that additional oaks be planted in this area or elsewhere around the site; that the irrigation shown on page L4 be allowed at a minimum of 2' from the right-of-way on Zappettini Court and the spray shall be directed in a spread away from the right-of-way; that a letter be submitted by a certified arborist certifying the condition of and requesting the removal of the dead oak tree at the rear of the garage; that all lighting be removed from the setbacks; that 2 driveway lights were approved for the lot; and that the 30" pine on the south east side of the lot was approved for removal. The Planning Commission requested that the landscape plan be agendized for review. OPENED PUBLIC HEARING Manou Movassate, 1161 Cherry Street, San Carlos, was present to answer any questions. Commissioner Schreiner asked Staff if the circular drive was approved and Staff answered yes. Planning Commission Minutes APPROVED October 14, 1992 Page 6 CLOSED PUBLIC HEARING The Commission discussed the cleaning and repair of the pathway, the driveway and granting an easement to oneself. It was noted by Chairman Pahl that this could be done. Commissioner Schreiner complimented Staff and the Site Development Committee for their work on this project. MOTION SECONDED AND PASSED: Motion by Commissioner Comiso and seconded by Commissioner Ellinger to approve with recommended conditions. AYES: Chairman Pahl, Commissioners Simmu, Stutz, Cheng, Comiso, Ellinger & Schreiner NOES: None 4.3 LANDS OF CALVO, 26201 Elena Road; A request for a Site Development Permit for a major addition, hardscape and gazebo. Ms. Niles introduced this item stating that the subject property is an unusually shaped lot of 1.56 acres with an average slope of 16.4%. The lot unit factor is 1.35. The existing home is a one story structure with an attached garage. The application is for the addition of a second story living area to include a master bedroom suite, two smaller bedrooms and bathrooms. The house will be increased from 4,552 sq. ft. to 7,087 sq. ft. and the maximum height of the addition will be 266". The addition as designed will not block existing views from surrounding properties. There is an existing gazebo that is located within the side yard setback on the east side of the lot which is being required to be relocated out of the setback. The neighbor to the east has indicated some concern for the relocation of the gazebo since it will be moved from behind existing vegetation and will become visible from his home. Staff recommended that additional plant screening be required along this property line as a condition of approval to be reviewed at the landscape site development stage. The Town's geologist had reviewed the geotechnical study for the project and has recommended approval of the project with conditions for the grading and construction of the home. The drainage and grading has been reviewed by the City Engineer and has been conceptually approved. A final grading and drainage plan will be required to be submitted and approved by the City Engineer prior to issuance of any building permits. The proposed project conforms to the provisions of the Zoning Ordinance in that it meets the setbacks, height limits, and the maximum floor area and development area standards. Commissioner Ellinger asked if the fence located in the same general area as the gazebo was built with approval and located with approval. Planning Commission Minutes APPROVED October 14, 1992 4 Page 7 �r Ms. Niles answered that building permits are not required for most fences, however, Site Development Permits are required but often times fences go in without site development approval. Commissioner Sinunu asked Staff if the ridge line would be affected. Commissioner Schreiner noted that there was an off-road path on the property that was approximately 20' from the lower end of the lot where it meets I-280 and she was concerned that the path should appear on the plan. She also asked if consideration was given to putting this property on sewers. Staff responded by stating that there were no sewer mains within this project area and it was not required. OPENED PUBLIC HEARING Carlos Fayard, 5439 Portsmouth Avenue, Newark, Architect, had no problem with any of the Staff's recommended conditions and welcomed some of the suggestions and discovered that he could receive assistance from the Town's Environmental Design and Protection Committee. He agreed with the suggestion for planting in the front of the house (east property line) and he felt they had adequate room in the 40' setback and he will discuss the types of trees to be planted with Staff and EDPC. Chairman Pahl asked Mr. Fayard if there was a possibility of shifting the gazebo around to provide the Pao's the privacy requested in their letter of 10/8/92. Mr. Fayard indicated that there would not be a problem. Commissioner Ellinger discussed the Calvo's fence which is on the Pao's property and Mr. Fayard stated that they would correct the placement of the fence. Raymond Pao, 26131 Elena Road, discussed his letter dated 10/8/92 and the placement of the gazebo. He would like the gazebo to be moved further away from his boundary line (west) and felt the 40' setback from the property line should ensure and maintain some reasonable privacy for all. It was explained, for record purposes, if the applicant agreed to move the gazebo it would be recorded on the site plan. Mr. Pao also had concerns regarding landscaping and the Commission assured him that the landscaping plan would return to the Planning Commission after the project was under construction which is also part of the recommended conditions. Commissioner Stutz discussed the age of Mr. Pads property and explained that years ago the Town allowed pools and decking within 10' of the property line. She suggested planting for screening on both properties. Planning Commission Minutes APPROVED October 14, 1992 Page 8 Mr. Fayard reviewed Mr. Pao's letter and only had one concern which was moving the gazebo 40' from the property line rather than 30' and Chairman Pahl mentioned that the suggestion was to move the gazebo from the north side of the pool to the west side of the pool. Mr. Fayard would have to discuss relocating the pool with the applicant, however, he felt he could speak for Mr. Calvo regarding moving the gazebo 40' from the property line. Commissioner Ellinger discussed the proposed fence. He asked if the design of the fence would be changed when moved or would it be mitigated with landscaping to completely shield it. Mr. Fayard stated the fence would be mitigated. The Commission's suggestions for approval were as follows: (a) change Condition 4 to read "Paint color shall be chosen by the applicant and reviewed by Staff and the Planning Commission in conformance with the Town's adopted color board to be appropriate for ridge line houses (to be darker).", (b) change Condition 6 to read "landscape planting and fence plan must be submitted to and approved by the Planning Commission," etc., (c) add Condition 8 "Pathway crossing roughened and relocate mail box." MOTION SECONDED AND PASSED: Motion by Commissioner Ellinger and seconded by Commissioner Stutz to approve with the Staff's recommended conditions with the addition to Condition 4 and changes to Conditions 6 and 8. AYES: Chairman Pahl, Commissioner Stutz, Cheng, Comiso, Ellinger, Schreiner & Simmu. NOES: None This item will appear on the City Council consent calendar on October 21, 1992. 4.2 LANDS OF SHAO, 25640 Elena Road; A request for a Site Development Permit for a new residence. Ms. Niles introduced this item stating that the proposal is for the construction of a new predominantly one story house with one small two story section on an existing relatively flat .96 acre lot which is located off of Elena Road. The average slope of the lot is 7.70/6 with a Lot Unit Factor of .96. The house is proposed to be sited towards the rear of the lot at a setback of at least 30'. The house will be somewhat visible from the street through the existing sparse vegetation. There is an existing one story single family dwelling unit on the site that will be removed. The house that is proposed will have two stories, however, there will Planning Commission Minutes APPROVED October 14, 1992 L Page 9 �r only be 759.75 sq. ft. on the second floor. The grading proposed is minimal and will be 367 c.y. of cut and 194 c.y. of fill, leaving 173 c.y. of excess. The project is close to its maximum floor area allowed on the lot. Staff recommended that a recorded restriction be placed on the property notifying any future buyers that the project is currently maxed out with regard to floor area and there is little or no floor area left to build on the site. Ms. Niles also stated that the Town's geologist William Cotton and Associates reviewed the project and recommended approval of the project with conditions for the grading and construction of the home. The drainage and grading has been reviewed by the City Engineer and has been conceptually approved. A final grading and drainage plan will be required to be submitted and approved by the City Engineer prior to issuance of any building permits. Jeff Peterson added to the recommended conditions which were discussed with the applicant: Condition 12, "The applicant shall dedicate street right-of-way along Elena Road so as to provide a 30' half street width." "The applicant will provide the Town with the necessary legal description and exhibit for recordation of the dedication and the dedication shall be recorded prior to issuance of building permits." Condition 13, "The applicant shall connect to the public sewer system on Elena Road to the satisfaction of the City Engineer." Commissioner Schreiner was pleased that the sewer condition was added. She asked if the shed would be removed and Ms. Niles replied that was her understanding, however, the applicants would be able to answer the question. Commissioner Stutz asked why Staff did not require the driveway to be relocated so it would have the standard 10' along side of the property line so the driveway would be inside and not right on the property line. Jeff Peterson stated that the proposed driveway for the development is shown in the same location as the existing driveway. He noted that there was nothing in the ordinances to prohibit the driveway from being in this location. OPENED PUBLIC HEARING Ron Harris, 10060 Wolf Road, Grass Valley, the applicant's architect, stated that they accepted the Staff's recommended conditions plus the two additional conditions presented by Mr. Peterson. Commissioner Schreiner noted that in William Cotton's report, page 2, it stated "We note that criteria for both shallow spread -footing and pier and grade beam foundations have been provided." "In our opinion, the pier and grade beam Planning Commission Minutes APPROVED October 14, 1992 Page 10 1J alternative would more effectively decrease" etc. She asked Mr. Harris if there were any objections to proceeding in this manner and he replied there were none. CLOSED PUBLIC HEARING Commissioner Sinunu complimented the architect on his work as he liked this plan. Commissioner Schreiner asked that the suggestion made by Commissioner Stutz regarding moving the driveway be considered and asked if the applicant would consider this as it would space out the house more and not make it so close to the next property. Mr. Harris stated that they located the proposed driveway in the same location as the existing driveway because the grading is a little easier there and to avoid the moving of a power pole. MOTION SECONDED AND PASSED: Motion by Commissioner Cheng and seconded by Commissioner Sinunu to approve the application with the Staff's recommended conditions with the addition of the Conditions 12 and 13. AYES: Chairman PaW; Commissioners Cheng, Comiso, Ellinger, Schreiner, Sinunu & Stutz NOES: None This item will appear on the City Council consent calendar for October 21, 1992. 4.5 LANDS OF HIFAI, 26856 Almaden Court; A request for a Site Development Permit for a new residence, pool and spa. Ms. Niles introduced this item stating that the proposal is for the construction of a new two story single family dwelling unit on an existing 1.01 acre lot which is located on an extended cul-de-sac. The average slope of the lot is 21.6% with a Lot Unit Factor of .76. The house is proposed to be sited towards the front of the lot at varying setbacks from 60' to 70' from the edge of the right-of-way since the right-of- way slopes. The elevation of the road is between 611 and 625, and the height of the upper most portion of the roof will be at approximately 631.5 elevation. The overall width of the house extends almost from side setback to side setback on the moderately pie shaped lot. The maximum width is 65'. The site is visible looking down from the roadway and can be minimally viewed through existing vegetation from the lots on either side of the site. As seen on the site plan, the siting of the adjacent house to the north is at a similar distance from the roadway, however, the view windows are facing east, and the siting of the house to the south is further east , on the lot down a long driveway with view windows facing north east. Planning Commission Minutes APPROVED October 14, 1992 Page 11 The house is proposed with two stories above grade and a 1,800 sq. foot basement, 1,770 sq. ft. of which is exempt from the floor area calculations. Grading will be 2,000 c.y. of cut and 50 c.y. of fill, requiring 1,950 c.y. of export. A construction and grading operation plan is being required as a condition of approval. Staff recommended that a recorded restriction be placed on the property notifying any future buyers that the project is currently maxed out and there is little or no floor area or development area left to build on the site. The driveway has been designed to allow adequate turning radius to enter the garage, however, the available maneuvering room is still limited. In order to provide adequate turning radius, the driveway had to be widened and two parking spaces added in front of the garage. The design of hardscape will be modified to add more grasscrete to lessen the amount of development area on the project and will be able to meet the MDA for the lot. Staff would appreciate discussion of the issue of bulk and mass, and whether an effort should be made to lessen the feeling of bulk and mass if the house is relatively well screened from most views. Depending on whether this is an issue if screened from view, the Commission may wish to request that the applicant consider a redesign to reduce the bulk and mass and to provide more off -set to the side and rear elevations. The Town's geologist William Cotton and Associates had reviewed the project and recommended approval of the project with conditions for the grading and construction of the home. The drainage and grading has been reviewed by the City Engineer and has been conceptually approved. A final grading and drainage plan will be required to be submitted and approved by the City Engineer prior to issuance of any building permits. Correction noted to the Staff report that the floor area and development area were reversed. Commissioner Ellinger asked Staff what the square footage was for the pool, spa, decking and sidewalk. He noted that the pool did not appear to be designed as yet and it would be an area to reduce square footage. Ms. Niles responded that the square footage for the pool and decking is 1,475, patios and walkways 513 and driveway and parking area 1,930. Commissioner Schreiner asked if the project could be connected to a sewer and Mr. Peterson answered no. She also discussed the basement ordinance interpretation and asked Ms. Niles for clarification. Ms. Niles stated that with regards to the project, there is square footage at the front of the garage that is not counted, however, it is very minimal. The retaining wall goes past the side wall of the garage and the dirt is at that level. The garage floor is at Planning Commission Minutes APPROVED October 14, 1992 Page 12 6' or greater below the grade and varies from one side to the other from 6' to 8 1/2 feet. When you reach the patio area the retaining wall that is around the patio area is at least 6' high with the dirt at that level. Chairman Pahl discussed the 20% grade proposed on this driveway and the fact that the Commission has always had a policy that as the grade approaches 15% the Commission becomes uncomfortable and as the grade approaches 20% engineering is required. OPENED PUBLIC HEARING Glen Calhoun, G & G Design, 1585 The Alameda, San Jose, and the designer on this project. In discussing the basement he stated that if three sides of a basement is covered greater than 6', you are exempt from floor area calculations in that area. He felt that the sight was gorgeous and had development all around it. He stated that he tried to make the best use of this property and felt the house was well screened with all the trees around it. He mentioned that he had done a number of things to reduce the patio pool area, and had created a little more grasscrete area to reduce the MDA below the square foot maximum. Mr. Calhoun also discussed the height and bulk of the project. He stated that there were a number of trees in the front of this area proposed for screening. He also noted that the 20% slope on the driveway is almost the natural grade. Commissioner Ellinger questioned the driveway and the pitch and asked Mr. Calhoun in using the grass block, would it be on the outside of the turning radius of the vehicle. Mr. Calhoun responded yes. Commissioner Ellinger discussed the possibility of using a Japanese stacker for the garage as he was very concerned with the 20% slope. Commissioner Sinunu asked Mr. Calhoun if he would give consideration to a smaller house and Mr. Calhoun responded by stating that is was not a spec house and it was designed for a specific client using all of the maximum development area. Commissioner Sinunu expressed concern with the size of the house on this lot with other houses as close by as they are. Commissioner Schreiner asked if the 2,000 cubic feet of cut was taken from the basement and Mr. Calhoun responded yes, that the majority was coming from the basement. Chairman Pahl was also concerned with the driveway and the need for it to be engineered safely. He asked Mr. Calhoun if any consideration was given to entering the house from the front of the property rather than the rear. He noted that the house does not step down with the topography and it appears to be static. He felt that the only reason the design worked on this lot was that they are utilizing the Planning Commission Minutes APPROVED October 14, 1992 V Page 13 basement as essentially a partial third story. Chairman Pahl also noted that this house has no eaves which appear to be only 6". He felt that the applicant was trying to put a good size house on a small size lot and this lot may not be able to handle everything proposed. Mr. Calhoun stated that the run of the driveway is close to 150' by the time you approach the face of the garage all the way around and the 20% slope is in the middle of the driveway and softens out both top and bottom. Dr. Wishard, 26830 Almaden Court, the neighbor to the left of the property stated that he did not receive a notice for this hearing. He asked if there was not some intent by the Planning Commission to maintain some kind of design continuity within the Los Altos Hills area. He noted that he did like certain parts of the house, however, he felt it was extremely busy. He would like some consideration taken with regards to a fence and all the little pillars. He was also concerned with the location of the swimming pool. He mentioned that the windows from his house which were all designed to take advantage of the view would now be impacted by the property next door. Dr. Wishard also discussed design type and mitigating the view. Dr. Ann Maeda, 26888 Almaden Court, the neighbor to the right. She would like to make sure that the landscaping would minimize what could be seen to maintain privacy. Greg McCandless, 26777 Almaden Court, neighbor across the street from the applicant. He would like to encourage the Commission to find a way to allow the driveway to go around the back of the house and felt it was a good design concept. CLOSED PUBLIC HEARING Commissioner Ellinger stated that the lot was small and derated by its steepness. In discussing the driveway he mentioned that the pool was also a catch basin for cars and he does not like the location of the pool. He discussed the possibility of the car lift mentioned previously and he would like to see a redesign. Commissioner Comiso stated that she did not have a problem with the basement because the ordinance at this time allows the square footage, however, she does have a problem with the 2000 cubic yards of cut for the basement and not used for stepping this house down the hill. She would also like to see a redesign. Commissioner Schreiner had concerns regarding the basement and felt the basement was giving this house the square and bulky look as well as a three story appearance and she would like to see the project return with a major redesign. Planning Commission Minutes APPROVED October 14, 1992 Page 14 Commissioner Sinunu agreed with Commissioner Schreiner and felt a house this size with three houses so close to it transfers this neighborhood from a rural character to a closed in subdivision and he felt it was not in keeping with the General Plan of the Town. He would be in favor of a one story house or something smaller that steps down with the property. Chairman Pahl mentioned that you could have a house this size if it were designed to flow with the land. He also agreed that the house needed to be redesigned. He felt that if the project returns, some consideration should be given to reducing the boxy look with larger eaves. MOTION SECONDED AND PASSED: Motion by Commissioner Schreiner and seconded by Commissioner Comiso to continue for redesign of the house and pool placement as directed by the Planning Commission. The applicant requested continuation to November 12, 1992. AYES: Chairman Pahl, Commissioners Stutz, Sinunu, Schreiner, Ellinger, Comiso & Cheng NOES: None 5. NEW BUSINESS 5.1 The November 11th Planning Commission meeting was approved to be rescheduled to Thursday, November 12th due to Veterans Day Holiday. 5.2 The November 25th Planning Commission meeting was approved to be rescheduled to Tuesday, November 24th due to Thanksgiving Day Holiday. 6. OLD BUSINESS 6.1 Fences will be discussed in a special study session on October 29, 1992 at 5:30 p.m. 6.2 Basements will be discussed in a special study session on October 29, 1992 at 5:30 p.m. 6.3 MDA/MFA Formula continued. 6.4 Recommended Plant List will be discussed in a special study session on October 29, 1992 at 5:30 p.m. 6.5 Review of General Plan -schedule will be provided at the next meeting. 6.6 Standard 5th Wednesday joint meeting with the Planning Commission and City Council, continued. 7. APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES OF SEPTEMBER 9, 1992 Request to continue minutes to the next Planning Commission meeting. Planning Commission Minutes APPROVED October 14, 1992 Page 15 8. REPORT FROM THE CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF OCTOBER 7,1992. Commissioner Cheng attended the City Council meeting and discussed Lands of Owen on Alta Lane North and their recommendation for the property to be connected to sewer. Jeff Peterson stated that while going through the files after the Planning Commission meeting in regard to the right-of-way of Lands of Owen, it was discovered that on the lot immediately adjacent to the Owen lot, Bob Owen and his current engineer had dedicated right-of-way. The Staff did not find this information in their search through files and information at the time they brought this item to the Commission and the existing right-of-way on that street was a uniform 30' along the entire length of the street. Those statements that were made at the Planning Commission meeting were not corrected by the applicant. Mr. Peterson discovered the information the evening of the City Council meeting at which time they called Mr. Owen to let him know of the findings so he could recalculate their MDA and MFA. Due to this incident it was suggested that Chairman Pahl draft a letter regarding misrepresentation which Ms. Niles will forward to the City Council on the behalf of the Commission. Commissioner Cheng continued with her report from theCityCouncil and Lands of Owen stating that the Council added Condition 5a to read "An irrevocable offer of dedication shall be made of a 30' half street right-of-way and dedication of area to achieve acceptable standards for parking and emergency vehicles on Alta Lane North and Alta Lane South with additional right-of-way to be dedicated at junction of Alta Lane North and Alta Lane South for turnaround." The Council also requested the fence be removed on Alta Lane South. Commissioner Cheng also discussed Lands of Hoover and the added condition regarding the constraints on the site that limited the available buildable area on Parcel 1, and the Maximum Development Area and Maximum Floor Area allowed on the lot may be reduced through the Site Development process. 9. REPORT FROM THE SITE DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE MEETING OF SEPTEMBER 15, 1992 9.1 LANDS OF CHEN, 26870 Taaffe Road; Driveway Modification: Approved with conditions including requiring the fence to be painted and the pathway to be improved. 9.2 LANDS OF COLO, 10401 Magdalena Avenue; Landscape: Approved with conditions. Planning Commission Minutes APPROVED October 14, 1992 Page 16 1j D • t 3 0 MOTION SECONDED AND PASSED: Motion by Chairman Pahl and seconded by Commissioner Comiso and passed by consensus to adjourn the meeting at 11:06 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Lani Lonberger Planning Secretary