Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout12/08/1993Minutes of a Regular Meeting APPROVED Town of Los Altos Hills PLANNING COMMISSION Wednesday, December 8,1993,7:00 P.M. Council Chambers, 26379 Fremont Road cc: Cassettes #23-93 (3) ROLL CALL AND PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE Planning Commission meeting was called to order at 7:00 p.m. in the Council Chambers at Town Hall. Present: Chairman Comiso, Commissioners Cheng, Ellinger (arrived 7:15), Schreiner, Simmu, Stutz & Takamoto Staff: Linda Niles, Town Planner; Jeff Peterson, City Engineer; Suzanne Davis, Assistant Planner; Lani 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 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. None. 4. REPORT FROM THE CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF DECEMBER 1 1993 4.1 Commissioner Schreiner reported the following items were discussed: Ordinance relating to Animal Control handled by the City of Palo Alto; the November 30th Planning Commission discussion regarding the 7 foot height limitation on floor area. The Council felt the Planning Commission should be concerned with the ordinance as proposed and not widen the discussion. Ms. Niles noted the City Council was referring Planning Commission Minutes APPROVED December 5,1993 Page 2 to the formula and what can be done with the Zoning Ordinance to make it work within the Town formula. Other items discussed: the Town color board and percent of reflection; Lands of Yanez approved without a variance; Lands of Lohr, lot 23 will return for redesign as it is highly visible especially from Prospect; concern with applicants using the maximum development area and that all hardscape should be shown before approval; Town working on expanding the database including assessors parcel number, history of lots, and updating current information. Commissioner Ellinger requested the Town database be graphical, be on-line and referenceable to the County global information system database. He is not looking for just a legal description of properties database. He is looking for a database with topographic features and development information that is graphical and on-line. Commission Cheng will be the Planning Commission representative for the December 15,1993 City Council meeting. 5. PUBLIC HEARINGS 5.1 TOWN OF LOS ALTOS HILLS; Review of revised Pathways Element of the General Plan for forwarding to the City Council with a recommendation of adoption by Council (continued from November 30, 1993). Chairman Comiso suggested moving this item to the end of public hearings. Mr. Peterson noted that the City Council in their goals and objectives has asked him to provide a pathway report. As part of that pathway report he would review all facets of the pathway system including maintenance and construction standards. He is presently working with the Pathway Committee on the standards. He felt it may be appropriate to delay the Pathways Element until the report is complete so the two could work together. MOTION SECONDED AND PASSED: Motion by Chairman Comiso, seconded by Commissioner Sinunu and passed by consensus to continue the Pathways Element until such time as staff has completed the pathway report as directed by the City Council. Planning Commission Minutes APPROVED December 8, 1993 Page 3 5.2 LANDS OF DORAN, 24920 La Loma Court; A request for a Site Development Permit Modification of a Condition of Approval. Staff had nothing further to add to the staff report. OPENED PUBLIC HEARING Shelly Doran, 24920 La Loma Court, applicant, stated that the recommendation by staff for a cash deposit to the Town in lieu of construction of the native pathway at this time appears to be the result of the opinion of the City Engineer. The opinion is based on the presumption that this or a recorded restriction would not be adequate or it is not appropriate for any new buyer to be responsible for the clearing and improvements required on their approval. She further discussed deed restrictions running in perpetuity with the property. Their original estimate submitted to staff ($3500) was based on moving equipment and importing materials to the pathway site, down a 30 grade behind their house. This would be installing the pathway now rather than some future date when their estimate could be half the amount. She felt it would be fair to be committed to paying the actual cost at the time of construction rather than an inaccurate and probably inflated cost now. She asked if at a future date when this pathway is installed, if they would be refunded the difference between the deposit and the actual cost. Mrs. Doran asked that the deed restriction be granted to them running in J perpetuity with the property and that would require them to complete the native pathway at the time the construction is completed at either end (La Loma Drive or Stonebook Drive). She further read the original condition of approval relating to the pathway, #5, dated October 14,1992. The Dorans were in favor of the pathway being installed. However they do not recognize the need to pay money in lieu of a deed restriction which is a binding document for the path to be installed sometime in the future. Mrs. Doran brought a pathway map and aerial photo. She requested information regarding an appeal to the City Council if the condition is not modified as she has worked with staff for a year without a resolution. Chairman Comiso explained the appeal process. Mrs. Doran was objecting to the $3,500 deposit or any amount at this time since there are several paths that will end up eventually connecting Stonebrook Drive with La Loma Drive. Presently, there are ten properties that back up to where the path is to be built. When the pathways are built, starting at Stonebrook, and there is access from Stonebrook or La Loma Court, there would be clear access for a contractor to move equipment in and do all the paths and save everyone money. She further discussed not receiving the conditions of approval letter dated April 30, 1993 which stated the landscape approval was contingent upon submittal of the pathway dedication document required on the original permit approval, including the plat map, the legal description, and a $3,500 deposit to accomplish the future clearing of the path (condition #4). Planning Commission Minutes APPROVED December 8, 1993 Page 4 Commissioner Ellinger discussed deed restrictions and deposits. He asked Mrs. Doran if it was her intent not to build the path until they sold the property. She noted their intent was to build a path when the pathway system connects their path with the next paths. Presently, there are five properties on either side of them that are all in a similar situation. They happen to be the first property in for remodel. If they were to install the path now, it would go nowhere. Commissioner Ellinger noted he had a stack of papers on his desk at home which included deed restriction enforcement. He felt legal proceeding and deed restrictions were not worth half as much as a real agreement with people actually doing the work. What the Town wants are paths, not deed restrictions. Tom Doran, 24920 La Loma Court, stated most of the $3,500 cost is getting the equipment down the hill. If you eliminate that aspect, most of the cost is clearing the brush. He felt there were two ways to accomplish this; one would be going down the hill, which is the bulk of the $3,500 or coming in over a path that is already being constructed, in which case the cost would be around $1,400, most of which is for clearing brush. Commissioner Ellinger discussed clearing the path by hand tools. The brush could be hand carried out and then chipped. Commissioner Stutz discussed the site development meeting of April 27,1993 when the landscaping plan was approved. She asked if the Dorans accepted the conditions of approval at that time. Ms. Niles noted at site development meetings, a staff report is not prepared and conditions of approval are prepared after approval. It was noted that it is not unusual to request paths even if they are not yet connected to another path. She corrected the wording "build a native path", explaining the Town is not asking them to build a path. They are only asking for it to be cleared. Mr. Peterson commented that even without header boards or gravel, if there is a cross slope it may not be walkable without doing some grading. There may be a possibility that a native path may require some construction. Commissioner Sinunu felt the staff offered the Dorans more of a compromise than the Planning Commission. They would ask for the path to be cleared, not the deposit. Mrs. Doran understood there is a bond that is earmarked for pathways. Ms. Niles stated that each deposit from each property owner was held separately as a deposit for whatever the deposit is for. It is not put into a general fund. Mrs. Doran wanted to make sure that whatever they put money into was going to be used for the pathway. Mr. Peterson stated the main reason for his position was not because of a distrust of the Dorans but based on history. Over the past few years the Town has cleaned up several pathway situations which had slipped by. Usually the situations were stumbled upon and not due to a tickler file. The difficulty was that the Planning Commission and City Planning Commission Minutes APPROVED December 8,1993 Page 5 Council had placed a condition that this path be cleared. The only way staff can make sure this is completed is to keep control of it. Otherwise it would be forgotten. Mr. Doran felt if the condition could be forgotten, the deposit could be forgotten. They never objected to the construction of the path except for building a path to nowhere, when in two years it would take the same amount of money to re -clear. If the Planning Commission felt the deposit is required, at least require the deposit amount based on a reasonable access over a trail being built rather than the cost from their property. Nicholas Rokitiansky, 24910 La Loma, neighbor, discussed the path and commented that he never saw anyone use the path area. CLOSED PUBLIC HEARING Commissioner Ellinger commented that the condition requiring a $3,500 deposit was not excessive and felt the path should be cleared anyway for fire safety. This condition was not unusual, in fact, similar conditions include pathway construction prior to issuance of occupancy permit. Commissioner Sinunu agreed with Mr. Peterson's comments. They need to keep control of pathway requirements, requiring a deposit now or complete the clearing now. He did not feel they could condition the amount of money based on what a more k/ efficient path might cost. He felt it was better to condition the money on what the expensive path would cost. If the path expense is lower than the deposit, the burden should be on the applicant to return for the refund. Commissioner Schreiner did not feel this was an unusual condition. It was something that is required of many residents at subdivision time or at single lot application. She agreed with Commissioner Ellinger regarding the difficulty with legal proceedings in these matters. She felt the most efficient way to handle pathway requirements was to condition a deposit or clear the path now. Commissioner Ellinger felt it was better to clear the brush now when the poison oak was dormant and hiring a crew when it might not be a busy time for them. He would not be concerned if the Dorans waited until spring to grade the path with the required deposit in the meantime. Commissioners Stutz and Commissioner Ettinger agreed that $3,500 was not a significant amount if the work remained unfinished for a length of time. Commissioner Stutz noted that the Dorans were not asking to postpone the construction of the path for a number of years. They are asking to postpone the pathway until other property owners have given an easement. This will never be reached at the same time. Planning Commission Minutes APPROVED December 8, 1993 Page 6 Commissioner Takamoto asked that they stop confusing the applicant. The Town is committed to the path system. Whether it goes somewhere or not should not make any difference. A deposit to him would be the last thing he would want to do. The applicant was asked if they would like to clear the path now or make the deposit. Mr. Doran asked if they cleared the path and no one uses it, are they expected to maintain it. Mr. Peterson answered, stating the pathway committee and others are putting together a new pathway map that will be part of the Town Handbook. The City Council will be making a decision based on the map as to what pathways will be maintained. If Mr. Doran would look at the Master Pathway Plan on the Chamber wall there are a number of planned paths as well as paths that are in place. The Council will be making a decision as to where to focus maintenance, as there will be existing pathway easements that will not be maintained by the Town. MOTION SECONDED AND PASSED: Motion by Commissioner Sinunu and seconded by Commissioner Schreiner to move that the applicant be required to put in a native pathway on the property prior to final building inspection approval or be required to pay a $3,500 deposit to complete the path, as noted in the letter addressed to the applicants dated April 30,1993, Condition 4. AYES: Chairman Comiso, Commissioners Takamoto, Cheng, Ellinger, Schreiner, Sinunu & Stutz NOES: None This item will appear on the City Council consent calendar December 15, 1993. ILE 4V Planning Commission Minutes December 8,1993 Page 7 APPROVED 5.3 LANDS OF HELLIWELL, 2240 Old Page Mill Road; A request for a Site Development Permit for a Major Addition including a secondary unit. Ms. Niles introduced this item noting that a letter had been received by Eric Spangenberg, son of Mrs. Spangenberg residing at 2100 Old Page Mill Road and a copy had been placed in the Commissioners' box. Mr. Spangenberg noted that his mother did not have an opportunity to review the plans as they were not available to her. He felt she was denied reasonable notice of the planned improvements, or given sufficient opportunity to prepare an objection to the proposed addition. She was concerned that the secondary unit would look right into the Spangenberg bedrooms. Ms. Niles commented that the plans had been available. However the staff report was not available until Tuesday. In regard to the reference of the Environmental Quality Act, the project is exempt because it is a single family dwelling and a small project. Commissioner Schreiner questioned the figures for the secondary dwelling making sure they were not over the maximum 1,000 square feet. OPENED PUBLIC HEARING Ruth Spangenberg, 2100 Old Page Mill Road, neighbor, discussed not being able to t. review the plans until Wednesday morning. She noted that her property is at 340 feet 4/ elevation which is just 10 feet below the Helliwell's pad. She felt her bedroom wing was totally impacted by this development. She asked her son who is a civil engineer to speak for her as she indicated she was just getting over laryngitis. Eric Spangenberg, registered civil engineer, attorney at law and licensed real estate broker. He noted that he had known the Helliwells for many years and like his mother, noted they were never approached regarding this project. He felt the Helliwells and their architect did not take into consideration the impact this design makes on the Spangenberg household. Mr. Spangenberg gave history of the subdivision and presented a photo showing the location of both houses in relationship to each other. He felt the application by the Helliwells was very insensitive to the living circumstances of an existing household. Mr. Spangenberg discussed the history of the property and the original subdivision. He was informed that the Town was not bound by subdivision CCR's unless the Town accepts them. He further discussed due process, the impact on his mother's property and the proposed improvement being totally unacceptable. Drapes would have to remain closed for privacy. Ms. Niles explained the application process and notice dates. Mrs. Spangenberg noted she was the only neighbor effected by this development. She discussed existing vegetation and did not feel it offered enough screening. N Planning Commission Minutes APPROVED December 8, 1993 Page 8 Carol Gottlieb, Pathway Committee, noted that since Gerth Lane is a private road, the committee requested a pathway easement over the road dedication easement. Bob Helliwell, 2240 Old Page Mill Road, applicant, apologized to his neighbor, the Spangenbergs, for not receiving the information earlier. When he saw the 500 foot radius and the people involved, he knew the Town would make available the information. He would wait to see if he received any calls regarding the project. The neighbors from across the street did call and were happy with the project. He did not see any problem with the project. He noted that the Spangenbergs have a row of bushes which help screen the area. He felt they have done their best to meet the requirements of the Town and made a revision to the plans making sure that they met all the conditions. He did not feel the structure would be an eye sore or an impingement on privacy in any direction. Ernst Meissner, 1150 University Drive, architect, noted because of the 30 feet additional easement they are setting aside, the available development area was considerably reduced. In order to fit the addition onto the property without infringing on any of the setback requirements, floor area or development area, it required a two story structure. The logical place to put the two story structure would be over the new construction of the garage. If they would put it over the building itself it would impact as much or more. By complying with all of the requirements and setbacks, they felt they had every f right to enjoy the property. Commissioner Schreiner asked what was the present height of the house. Mr. Meissner responded, it was a one story structure, 10 feet. The two story proposed would be 18 feet in height which was well within the requirements. Commissioner Simmu asked Mr. Meissner if he also did landscaping. Mr. Meissner responded yes and he felt there would be no problem with planting vegetation for screening. CLOSED PUBLIC HEARING Commissioner Stutz questioned the road right-of-way dedication and asked if there was any other 30 foot dedication on that side of the road. The response was no. She asked if the 30 foot dedication on the other side of the road was all the way down. Ms. Niles responded yes. She asked the staff if they felt a 30 foot dedication was necessary for a 60 foot right-of-way on this road. Mr. Peterson responded that there are a number of lots on which the Town's right-of-way policy calls for 50 foot right-of-way. Looking at the number of lots that serves this, and the length of it, it falls within the perimeters of the right-of-way policy for 60 feet. Commissioner Stutz was referring to the property beyond the Helliwells owned by Mr. Jarvis and felt they would never get 30 feet from them as the property would be kept as open space. She was questioning whether they kw were taking too much for the type of road present 19 Planning Commission Minutes December 8, 1993 Page 9 APPROVED Mr. Peterson commented that the road right-of-way policy requires 60 feet for roads that access this many properties. Staff is only recommending right-of-way in accordance with the City Council right-of-way policy. Commissioner Stutz felt the grandfathered development area should be left (currently a volleyball area) and felt it was a great place to park cars. Ms. Niles noted that the applicant would appreciate leaving the development area. The applicant is aware that he could leave the overage development area. However he was trying to bring in a project that totally conformed. Commissioner Stutz recommended leaving the volley ball court as is for parking. Commissioner Ellinger stated in terms of setbacks, not only did they have the 30 foot setbacks, but in all points the building, old and proposed, was well back from the setbacks and below the height maximum of 27 feet. This is a pre-existing condition with the design of the Spangenberg house that happens to have a glass wall along one line. He did not feel the applicant could do anything about that no matter where he built on the property. The only options open were, assuming the construction on this was within other ordinances, to mitigate with landscaping. He was not troubled by the scope of this building project. Mr. Spangenberg requested to speak, however he was informed the public hearing was closed. Commissioner Schreiner discussed the two story being 18 feet in height. She had no problem with the project until she discovered a neighbor would be impacted. In looking at the plan, she did not see where else the project would be placed. The applicant would have to put a second story somewhere and she felt this would be about the best location. She would like to see a great deal of attention paid to landscaping so the neighbor is satisfied. Chairman Comiso agreed with the Commissioners. She believed in mitigation with plants and with trees. She suggested, since there has been such concern regarding mitigating a view from the addition, that they bring the landscaping plan back to the Planning Commission if necessary. Planning Commission Minutes December 8,1993 Page 10 APPROVED MOTION SECONDED AND PASSED: Motion by Commissioner Stutz and seconded by Commissioner Cheng to accept the application as proposed, redlining in the paving of the volleyball court and adding a pathway condition of a 10 foot dedication in the road right-of-way. The applicant's representative indicated acceptance of all conditions. AYES: Chairman Comiso, Commissioners Ellinger, Schreiner, Sinunu, Stutz, Takamoto & Cheng NOES: None This item will appear on the City Council consent calendar December 15, 1993 with corrected figures relating to development area prior to going to City Council. Five minute break at 9:15 p.m. kw Planning Commission Minutes December 8, 1993 Page 11 APPROVED 5.4 LANDS OF BEIGLER, 14780 Manuella Road; A request for a Site Development Permit for a Major Addition and Remodel (continued from November 30,1993). Ms. Davis introduced this item noting that the staff report mentioned the applicant would be removing some development. She clarified for the Commissioners the location of the removal. The Commission discussed the applicant removing other surface areas rather than the historic old tile and that grasscrete was acceptable except for driveway or parking areas. Grasscrete counts 50% towards development area. Commissioner Stutz questioned the slice of land on the south side of their property appearing to be 20 feet in width. Ms. Davis commented this was an access easement and not counted as net lot area. This is owned by the Beiglers. Ms. Davis noted there was not a requirement from the Town to increase the width. Commissioner Schreiner asked if the carport was in the setback. The response from Ms. Davis was yes as it is an existing circumstance. Commissioner Schreiner asked if there were adequate parking spaces and turn around if they reduced the driveway width. Ms. Davis stated if the driveway was reduced to 12 feet it would not have to be changed L in front of the driveway so the backup area is still adequate. OPENED PUBLIC HEARING Mike Beigler,14780 Manuella Road, discussed the development area, the easement on the south side of the property reducing the net lot area to .918. This was the Hills Brothers 17 acre property eighty years ago. He discussed the 80 year old pathways that go through the fence to the other side. Commissioner Stutz noted that the new garage holds two cars and the carport handles one car. The fourth parking space had been overlooked. After discussion, it was determined the fourth space could be located to the right of the garage. Commissioner Schreiner discussed condition #2. There are mature trees on the property making it difficult to replace or remove damaged or destroyed trees. It was suggested changing the wording from "will" to "may" be required to be replaced. Commissioner Ettinger discussed the findings: the pre-existing historical paving situation has been well maintained by the current owner and would suggest pavers not be removed. He also noted that in order not to create a safety hazard, the Commission would leave it to the discretion of the City Engineer to determine on site where paving reductions could be accomplished and grasscrete could be used effectively so as to n Planning Commission Minutes December 8, 1993 Page 12 APPROVED 410 maintain effective access to the property, provide parking and not create a safety hazard without a strict adherence to the specific MDA requirements. Commissioner Schreiner asked staff if all the potential walkways, concrete patios, etc. had been counted toward the MDA. Staff responded yes. MOTION SECONDED AND PASSED: Motion by Commissioner Ellinger and seconded by Commissioner Sinunu to approve the application with conditions and findings, including redlining in the extra parking space to the right of the new garage as use of a non conforming area and changing condition #2 wording from "will' to "may". AYES: Chairman Comiso, Commissioners Schreiner, Simmu, Stutz, Takamoto, Cheng & Ellinger NOES: None This item will appear on the City Council consent calendar December 15, 1993. k Planning Commission Minutes December 8, 1993 Page 13 APPROVED 5.5 LANDS OF LOHR, 12105 Oak Park Court -Lot 3; A request for a Site Development Permit for a New Residence. Staff had nothing further to add to the staff report. The Commission discussed no Human Habitation Setback for noise and the natural grade measurement. The amount of fill under the house would be answered by the applicant. Ms. Niles discussed the access road, the joint driveway and the fill which will be on the lots 1 and 2. OPENED PUBLIC HEARING Steve Lohr, 586 Lagunita Drive, Stanford, applicant, commented that lot 2 was not a flat lot and the only place to build would be between the grove of trees and the open space. The driveway was designed to protect the oak trees. The fill under the house rates from about zero in the front of the house to 61/2 to 7 feet at the back of the house. The reason for so much fill was they needed to be fairly high on the property so they would not have a steep slope on the driveway. As you come off of Oak Park Court, you have the standard flat spot for a short distance, then 5% to 10%. For a good portion of the driveway they are at a 20% slope which he felt was the limit the Town likes to see on driveways and roadways. Commissioner Ettinger asked what was the total worst case 040 height above natural grade. Mr. Lohr responded 26'6" where the second story portion is above the garage. Most of the house is a single story but there is a library and a guest room above the garage. They designed this house for a buyer. They wanted to keep the views to the bay and be sensitive to the neighbors on Priscilla Lane, which is immediately behind this project. Mr. Lohr discussed the drainage, the catch basin and the energy dissipater. Commissioner Schreiner questioned condition #12 regarding the storm drain maintenance agreement. She asked who the agreement was with. Mr. Peterson responded, stating there is a private storm drain system that is actually benefiting both lots 2 and 3. The storm drain system is picking up water behind the retaining wall on lot 2 which protects the roadway and driveway. If you have a conscientious home owner on one lot and not on the other, you need to make sure both contribute to the care of the storm drain system to protect both of the properties. This is to insure both property owners will cooperate and take care of this since they will both depend on it. He felt the best way to handle this would be to have the document recorded with the titles of both properties which would give protection to both property owners. Mr. Peterson suggested expanding condition #12 requiring the agreement be recorded. Commissioner Stutz noted in the deck area behind the house there was still enough development area for a small pool. Mr. Lohr commented all conditions of approval were acceptable. F, L Planning Commission Minutes December 8, 1993 Page 14 CLOSED PUBLIC HEARING APPROVED Commissioner Ellinger was concerned with the fill and drainage. He commented all concerns have been addressed. MOTION SECONDED AND PASSED: Motion by Commissioner Ellinger and seconded by Sinunu to approve the requested site development permit with the noted conditions of approval with the addition to condition #12 "shall be recorded on the title or the deed". AYES: Chairman Comiso, Commissioners Stutz, Takamoto, Cheng, Ellinger, Schreiner & Sinunu NOES: None This item will appear on the City Council consent calendar December 15,1993. NEW BUSINESS 6.1 Request for discussion of Interpretation of what qualifies as hardscape (Scruby). Ms. Niles provided the Commission with three color samples of the product. She commented that in reading the ordinance, the purpose of limiting development area was so as not to see as much hard surface, to keep as much naturally looking or open looking as possible. The reason the Town allows the exemption for grasscrete was because it has a hard surface, and also has a grass coming through it. There is a percentage of it that is exempt from being counted as development area. This new surface does not have grass coming through it but it is not as solid as a pavement. She asked the Commission to discuss their feelings. If it looks not to be hardscape, could there be some exemption. Further discussion ensued regarding: the original reason for limiting development area which was to reduce run off from hard surfaces; possibly increasing the number of tennis courts; setbacks; sprinkler system built into the tennis court to keep down the dust; concern with development area being maxed and then use this product for a tennis court if it reduced the percentage counted. All of the Commissioners felt this product would be better for the environment than total hardscape tennis courts. They requested more information from staff and suggested a site visit to see sample of the product some time in the future.. 7. OLD BUSINESS Planning Commission Minutes APPROVED December 8, 1993 Page 15 4 7.1 Discussion of the Town's Adopted Color Board. Commissioner Schreiner commented that the City Council looked at the suggestion of reflective colors favorably and asked the Planning Commission to give staff some direction. She further discussed choosing colors on the basis of a light reflection value. The deeper the tint, the less the reflection. It was suggested making a new color board on the basis of light reflection value which was agreeable to the Council. The City of Los Gatos uses the reflection value of 30 which she felt was very limiting. It was suggested, for a future meeting, to bring in color samples with reflection values and compare them with the Town color board. 7.2 Report from the Design Guidelines Sub -Committee -continued. Commissioner Schreiner gave a brief update. A memo was sent to the Planning Commissioners from the Design Guidelines Subcommittee regarding an additional page for the handbook explaining slope density. They asked that the Planning Commission review and forward any comments to the Design Guidelines Committee. The Commission discussed the illustration. The Commissioners commented that they were not sure slope density could be explained with a picture. The illustration was not acceptable or useful. Dropping of floor area and development are decreases as slope increases. They felt it was acceptable to give L460 definition of slope density, however not an illustration 7.3 Circulation Element -Continued (to be re -scheduled by Staff). 7.4 Land Use Element -Continued. 7.5 Conservation Element -Continued. 7.6 Noise and Scenic Highways Elements -Continued. 7.7 Safety and Seismic Safety Elements -Continued. 7.8 Open Space Element -January 26, 1994 at 5:30 p.m. iW Planning Commission Minutes APPROVED December 8, 1993 Page 16 4 8. APPROVAL OF MINUTES 8.1 Approval of the November 30, 1993 Minutes. Continued. 9. REPORT FROM THE SITE DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE MEETING None 10. ADJOURNMENT MOTION SECONDED AND PASSED: Motion by Commissioner Sinunu, seconded by Cheng, and passed by consensus to adjourn at 11:00 p.m. Respectfully submitted, LaniLonberger Planning Secretary AW L