Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout02/09/1994APPROVED 2/23/94 Minutes of a Regular Meeting Town of Los Altos Hills PLANNING COMMISSION Wednesday, February 9,1994,7:00 P.M. Council Chambers, 26379 Fremont Road cc: t-asserres so -7v tol 1. ROLL CALL AND PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE Planning Commission meeting was called to order at 7:08 p.m. in the Council Chambers at Town Hall. Present: Commissioners Cheng, Ellinger, Schreiner, Simmu, Stutz & Takamoto Absent: Chairman Comiso Staff: Linda Niles, Town Planner; Jeff Peterson, City Engineer; Suzanne Davis, Assistant Planner; Lani Lonberger, Planning Secretary Vice -Chairman Ellinger opened the meeting in Chairman Comiso's absence. 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 FEBRUARY 2.1994 4.1 Commissioner Schreiner reported there were no public hearings on the agenda. Under New Business, the following items were discussed: the use of Town ball [ fields by Pinewood School; the Residential Design Guidelines and selection of a/ printing criteria; discussion of whether to respond to the State's new regulations Planning Commission Minutes APPROVED 2/23/94 February 9, 1994 ( Page 2 regarding barricades for swimming pools and sending a letter to the State; a request from Westwind Barn for review of proposed agreement with the Town; and the City Council and Planning Commission joint meeting scheduled for March 30, 1994 at 5:30 p.m. Commissioner Sinunu will be the Planning Commission representative February 16th. 5. PUBLIC HEARINGS 5.1 LANDS OF DEWAR, 27761 Moody Road; A request for a Site Development Permit for a New Residence. Ms. Davis introduced this item, commenting on the fire department recommendation for a fire hydrant and removal of some combustible brush from the property. Specific conditions were not included in the staff report. The fire department requested additional conditions for these two items. Ms. Davis noted that the applicants plan to install a patio once they have demolished the existing residence. This is not shown on the plan before them. Typically hardscape like this is handled at the landscape plan stage. Provided the development area does not exceed the grandfathered 9,960 square feet, it would be acceptable. Also, staff did not include a condition regarding any kind of deed restriction which is typically included when there is a development area that exceeds the allowable maximum development area. She recommended adding this condition. Ms. Davis provided the Commission and the applicants with a copy of the additional recommended conditions of approval. Commissioner Sinunu asked how strongly the fire department felt about the recommended fire hydrant. Ms. Davis did not have a discussion directly with the fire department. However Stu Farwell called several times to make sure this condition was added. Ms. Niles stated that this was a fire department policy, the issue being there is an existing hydrant on Sherlock Road but the project address and access is on Moody Road. The fire department has been making an effort recently to insure that all properties have an address on the street that they access from so the fire department can find them easily. In this case, there are two problems because there is no access off of Sherlock to the house. It may be there could be an access designed but it would be difficult because of the steepness off of Sherlock to the house. The Sherlock fire hydrant is very close and could service the residence except for lack of access and the project address not being on Sherlock. She did discuss with the fire department and the applicants the possibility of changing the address and access to Sherlock. She felt the engineering coming off of Sherlock would be difficult. She noted the cost of a fire hydrant is around $5,000 which covers the fixture and installation. Ms. Davis felt it would be much more costly to change the access then to install the fire hydrant as requested. Planning Commission Minutes APPROVED 2/23/94 February 9, 1994 Page 3 4 Commissioner Schreiner noted there were no story poles up. Ms. Niles noted that story poles are required on new residences. She felt there was a miscommunication between staff and the applicants. Commissioner Schreiner asked for the status of the easement for the egress/ingress that is required over someone else's property. Ms. Davis commented that they have had discussions with their neighbors. She felt that they had a written agreement from their neighbor which they would present this evening. They would also work with the engineering department on actually recording the agreement in a legal form. Commissioner Schreiner asked for a clarification from staff as to how they measured the development area grandfathered in as it must be at least 7,000 square feet of just a flat pad. It did not seem to her that there was any impervious surface down. It appeared to be mud with some loose gravel. She asked how they determined how much cut would be used for development area that will be grandfathered in. Ms. Davis noted that when the determination was originally made, she was not with the Town. She believed that the area had been fully graveled and counted. They gave the applicants the benefit of the doubt. They do count graveled areas as development areas on any site except for a walkway, four feet in width or less. Ms. Niles noted the gravel had never been formally removed. Over time gravel wears and sinks down into the dirt. She felt the applicants had never purposely removed any of the development area. She mentioned that they have been working on this project for over a year and the original numbers were calculated on what was there when the staff began the review of the project. The whole area in question was parking, driveway area and outdoor space, which is the only usable area on the lot. OPENED PUBLIC HEARING Don Dewar, 27761 Moody Road, applicant, provided the Commission with a letter regarding the fire department request for a fire hydrant. He felt it was unnecessary and unfair for several reasons. There is an existing fire hydrant located at the corner of their property at Sherlock Road which is closer to their building site than any hydrant on Moody Road. They have been at their present residence for the past three years and at no time did the fire department or anyone bring up the possible request for a new fire hydrant. There is an existing hydrant down Moody Road that is about 250 feet from their property. Commissioner Stutz discussed Mr. Dewar's letter, specifically #1, noting that the fire department was willing to let them use the fire hydrant on Sherlock if he was willing to close his driveway to Moody and have a Sherlock Road address. She explained that what the fire department is trying to do is to get the addressing on the street that the fire truck accesses from, so he would need to put in a driveway from the top of the property. Planning Commission Minutes APPROVED 2/23/94 February 9, 1994 ( Page 4 Commissioner Schreiner asked if the applicants had all the outside area that they are going to want to use on this plan. She noted that once a deed restriction is put on they will not be allowed any more development area. Ms. Davis noted that they are proposing an additional patio that is not shown on the plan which would be in the location of the existing house. The numbers shown in the staff report do not include that patio. They would have to determine how large the patio would be and add it in. As long as it did not exceed the grandfathered development area (9,960 square feet), it would be acceptable. They could establish the number prior to deed restriction to include the additional patio. Mr. Dewar further discussed his letter regarding the fire department requirements. He felt asking them to put in and pay for a fire hydrant would not be fair. Les Earnest, Co -Chair Pathway Committee, noted that no pathway construction is needed at this time. However, it has been pointed out that the Town does not plan at this time to take possession of Sherlock Road, which passes on one side of this lot. Given that a pathway is planned for an adjacent segment of Sherlock, we recommend that the Town take a pathway easement over the portion of Sherlock that is a part of this lot so that public access may eventually be assured. Commissioner Schreiner explained why the Pathway Committee was requesting an 4, additional dedicated easement. Even though the Town was asking for road right-of- way, Sherlock is a private road. She did not feel the Town would pick it up, so what is needed is the pathway easement that is picked up to finish it. Vice -Chairman Ellinger clarified that the pathway request is for an easement only. This would not involve any cost to the Dewars. CLOSED PUBLIC HEARING Commissioner Takamoto asked if the wording from the fire department was a recommendation or was mandatory and could the Planning Commission override the request. Ms. Niles noted that the Commission cannot override a recommendation from the Fire District Fire Marshall. However they can make a recommendation for City Council consideration. The City Council could overrule the fire district. Commissioner Schreiner had a problem with all the development area being grandfathered in. It concerns her because the whole pad will be taken up with the house and impervious surface from bank to bank. She felt it would be very difficult to put in trees to mitigate this house. This is why she really wanted to see the story poles to see how visible this house would be from Moody Road and Sherlock Road. She felt it was too much development for the pad. Planning Commission Minutes APPROVED 2/23/94 February 9, 1994 Page 5 4W Commissioner Sinunu felt the fire hydrant request was a legitimate request from the fire department and understands the applicants' feeling. It appears to be a reasonable exercise of police power. Commissioner Takamoto remembered talking with Stu Farwell regarding fire sprinkling in lieu of different things in terms of fire protection. He questioned how much it would cost to sprinkle this house. It was felt by all that it would be costly. Commissioner Schreiner requested that the condition for the pathway be put into the conditions of approval separately. She would like a condition for the deed restriction. Ms. Davis pointed out that the deed restriction is condition #9 in the revised conditions and the fire department recommendations are #10 and #11. She felt the pathway condition should go in the Engineering Department section. Commissioner Schreiner questioned the wording "a deed restriction which states that the MDA is exceeding the allowable level" noting that it is not at the allowable level presently. She asked if staff was proposing to add another 500 to 600 square feet for the deck and then use that new number. Ms. Davis noted they should not exceed the 9,960 sq. feet. Ms. Niles commented, that as noted in the staff report, the MDA approved under that permit becomes the maximum MDA for this property. The Commission discussion using the 8,694 plus the number for the back deck. This number needed to included in the recorded restriction. The restriction should state that the project is approved at a �, maximum of whatever the number is and no further expansion can take place without approval of the Town. Mrs. Dewar did not have a figure for the deck. She thought they could present the plan with the landscape plan. Ms. Niles noted that they have a grandfathered number which is over the allowable today. Through the site development process they give them a new number. If they reduce it below the existing grandfathered number, that is their new maximum area. The applicants would like to keep the 9,960 as their maximum and determine the actual area once they have the firm landscaping plans. Ms. Niles noted that once the grandfathered area has been removed (demolished) they can only have the area for a short amount of time before it no longer is grandfathered. The time period is 180 days. It is 1,246 square feet over what is being proposed now. Commissioner Schreiner still had difficulty with not knowing how they are going to landscape and mitigate the back of the house with the steep slope and the steep slope in the front using all the grandfathered in development area. Ms. Niles felt that one of the things the Commission needed to discuss was the fact that there is a house there now with no screening. The house that is going in is a two story modest house. In reviewing all projects the staff likes to provide mitigation screening from other properties, from bedroom windows, and significant outdoor areas of a ` project. They would like some screening to break up the open view but they are not Planning Commission Minutes APPROVED 2/23/94 February 9, 1994 Page 6 4W thinking of something that totally hides the house. Nothing will totally hide the house from Sherlock Road. Ms. Niles noted that there is 20-30 feet behind the retaining wall and between the house and edge of the right-of-way for some planting. Mr. Peterson noted that in this case he would not have any problem with additional landscaping in the road right-of-way. Discussion of the conditions of approval ensued. Condition 3 was changed so the landscape planting plan will be approved by the Planning Commission rather than the Site Development Committee. An additional condition was added requiring a pathway dedication within the Sherlock Road right-of-way to the satisfaction of the City Engineer prior to issuance of building permits. The recorded restriction shall be submitted for approval prior to submittal of plans for building permits. The non- conformity cannot be discontinued for more than 180 days. Condition 9 wording was changed to read "A recorded restriction is required which states that the approved MDA for the project is 9,960 square feet. No further expansion can take place on the property without prior approval of the Town." Commissioner Stutz suggested a maximum of 9,500 square feet and Commissioner Schreiner would like even less. The applicant hoped to maintain the 9,960 square feet as they would like a pool someday where the existing house is now. Ms. Niles understood that the applicants have not designed the remaining area as yet. However, the Commission, in allowing grandfathered MDA and MFA, usually sees the project showing how they are going to use the grandfathered amount. An option would be for the Commission to continue the item and allow them to come up with at least a conceptual plan for using the grandfathered area. Vice -Chairman Ellinger commented that they are sometimes swayed by what he called excellent design. If it is put together in such a way that is not overbearing or obtrusive and is a good use of the land, then that design can at times be approved. They would note the number of square feet associated with the design. They would stipulate that those square feet are only approved if that design is completed. If someone later changes their mind, as an example, from a pool to a ballroom, this would not be acceptable. Commissioner Sinunu agreed. He noted that their particular problem is that they are already over the allowable amount. Mrs. Dewar discussed the plan and what they would like for future use, hopefully including a pool. She noted she could redline on the plan or they could have a condition requesting Ms. Davis draw on the plan what the patio space would be and re- calculate the MDA. Ms. Niles stated that the permits are valid for a year. The applicant has the opportunity to come in and request an extension for an additional year, administratively prior to `, expiration. This would mean they would have two years. Anything over that amount Planning Commission Minutes APPROVED 2/23/94 February 9, 1994 Page 7 4 of time would have to be approved by Council. Mrs. Niles noted that if the applicant takes out any of the development area that they have grandfathered, then they are not allowed to keep it if it is gone for more than 180 days. The non -conforming section of the code, however, allows you to keep any non -conforming situation that they have right now as far as MDA and MFA and rebuild to that number. It could be in a totally different configuration. Ms. Davis noted that what the applicants had in mind was to do something like a patio or some sort of outdoor area so that they could establish the development area, keep it there. Assuming the Town does not changes the regulations that allow you to remove development area and replace it with something else, this would be how they could accomplish the pool several years from now. Commissioner Takamoto asked if they could set the MDA at 9,960 square feet. The applicants stillt have to return with plans in terms of developing that area later on. He had no problem leaving it at that maximum as they have approval over the project in review. This gives the applicants flexibility until that time. Vice -Chairman Ellinger noted that the Commission had three options; approve, reject or with the applicant's permission, continue. The applicants requested approval. Vice - Chairman Ellinger asked the applicants if they agreed with all the conditions as 4 modified, including the additional condition regarding pathway dedication as noted prior, condition 3 with Planning Commission approval of landscape plan, and the re- wording regarding the deed restriction. (The fire hydrant request was omitted temporarily.) The applicants indicated their acceptance of the conditions. Ms. Niles again clarified that the non -conforming section of the code very clearly states that if a non -conformity is discontinued or abandoned for 180 days, it is considered permanently discontinued. She noted that the Dewars were going to continue to live in the existing residence while the new home is being constructed. They will have that square footage still on the site and not removed. She wanted to make it very clear. Ms. Niles stated that the applicants are given the right to retain any grandfathered area that they already have but they cannot discontinue it for more than 180 days. The Planning Commission cannot arbitrarily approve a plan that shows less than 9,960 square feet if any of that number is going to be removed for any period of time. Commissioner Stutz could not see wthe 180 days making any difference since they are already using the entire area. Vice -Chairman Ellinger asked for exact wording regarding the deed restriction. Ms. Niles noted wording as follows; a recorded restriction is required on the property which states that the approved MDA for the project is 9,960 square feet. No further expansion will take place on the property without prior approval of the Town. A recorded restriction shall be submitted for approval prior to submittal of plans for Planning Commission Minutes APPROVED 2/23/94 February 9, 1994 Page 8 4 building permits. The staff could compose wording regarding the non -conformities not being removed for more than 180 days. MOTION SECONDED AND PASSED: Motion by Commissioner Sinunu and seconded by Commissioner Cheng to accept the recommended development with the deed restriction as set forth by the Town Planner and with further directions to the Planner to set forth the exact wording with all the recommended conditions set forth in Attachment 1, which is the recommended conditions for the Site Development Permit with the fire hydrant being installed. The motion includes the change in wording to #3 for Planning Commission approval; #9 new wording with staff composing wording regarding the non -conformities; and a new condition regarding pathway dedication within Sherlock Road right-of-way to the satisfaction of the City Engineer prior to issuance of building permits. AYES: Vice -Chair Ellinger, Commissioners Stutz, Takamoto, Cheng & Sinunu NOES: Commissioner Schreiner ABSENT: Chairman Comiso This item will appear on the City Council consent calendar or February 16, 1994. 5.2 TOWN OF LOS ALTOS HILLS: An ordinance of the Town of Los Altos Hills amending various sections of the Zoning and Site Development Ordinances (continued from November 30,1993 and January 12, 1994): Zoning Ordinance a. Section 10-1.208 - definition of Basement; (completed) b. Section 10-1.233 - definition of Floor Area; C. Section 10-1.227 - definition of Height, structure; d. Section 10-1.401 - Non -conforming Structures; and e. Section 10-1.504 - Height. Site Development Ordinance a. Article 7, Section 10-2.702 (b) and (e) - Conservation easement setbacks from creeks. Ms. Niles introduced this item stating that she has forwarded the basement definition to the City Council. It will appear on the March 2nd agenda. Since she was not at the last meeting, she reviewed the minutes and included in the staff report some of the discussion from the January 26th meeting. She requested discussion on floor area. kv Planning Commission Minutes APPROVED 2/23/94 February 9, 1994 ( Page 9 Discussion regarding floor area ensued. Commissioner Schreiner noted that they had gone over the seven foot limitation and felt they had come to a conclusion. They felt that the UBC allows living habitable space for kitchens, etc. seven feet and under. However they did not want to encourage this. They also did not want to encourage a seven foot garage because they felt there would be difficulty accessing. She felt the only thing you could do with a seven foot garage was to put sliding doors on it for entry. All agreed that the space meeting the definition of basement is exempt from counting as floor area. The definition of floor area as noted in the staff report was discussed, deleting the bolded second sentence. It was felt counting stairwells only once as floor area was acceptable. Vice -Chairman Ellinger discussed counting only the area shown on a plan that is the actual projection of stair treads. Discussion regarding height and structure ensued. Ms. Niles noted that this needed work. In the code they have reference to natural grade before man touched it. When the ordinance states you measure from the natural ground level which existed prior to grading for any structure, if you have 4,W a vacant lot, there is no problem because that is before you grade for the new structure. However, if you have a house there, the ordinance states prior to grading for any structures. This implies before the house was structured. h1 Town we have some houses that are 30, 40, and 50 years old. Some applicants try to recreate the natural ground that was there prior to construction. Commissioner Stutz noted that the ordinance states "or from the building pad, whichever elevation is lower." Ms. Niles also felt they needed to address the definition of natural grade in this section. She read the definition of natural ground. What has happened is applicants are coming in without a real signed topography map that shows what that natural ground level was before this 30 year old house was constructed, wanting to try and extrapolate. They guesstimate what was there. Staff is having problems with when to accept those plans, when not to accept, and how much or how little you can extrapolate. She did not care what was used as long as it is easy to interpret. The point is not to penalize anyone but to get a product that is what they intend on the property. She is looking for definitions that will help them. Commissioner Schreiner asked what happens when someone says that this piece of property is on 10 feet of fill. Do you measure from the existing pad? Commissioner Stutz commented why not simplify it using exactly what is there today regardless of what has happened prior. Ms. Niles felt this was an excellent suggestion. This is clear and reasonable. Under definition include that this Planning Commission Minutes APPROVED 2/23/94 February 9, 1994 Page 10 excludes any illegal or unapproved grading, fill or cut. A flood plain area that is filled is appropriate to use as natural grade. Vice -Chairman Ellinger discussed the approach "grade as found" documenting the average elevation or the elevation at mid -point of the building circles inscribed on all of the lots, or record the topo map of each of the properties as they have been subdivided in the Town. Commissioner Sinunu suggested wording, "structural height shall mean the vertical distance at any point from the natural ground level which existed prior to grading for any structure unless an approved building pad has been established, in which case the elevation shall be measured from that building pad." Ms. Niles felt they should still leave in the section, "or from the building pad if excavated below natural ground level." Vice -Chairman Ellinger noted that if they go along with "grade as found" who is going to find it. He proposed that if you go with that concept that the grade as found shall be found and noted by staff prior to the submission for review by the Commission of any building plans. Ms, Niles noted that this is the survey that is required to be submitted with the application. It is the survey of the existing conditions. She did not feel they wanted a definition that would allow anyone to figure out what some old natural grade was. Vice -Chairman Ellinger would like to have a reliable source of information. As an enforcement process, he would like to say, should any grading commence prior to the determination of this grade, building height envelope will be reduced by five feet. Everyone agreed with the .'grade as found" concept. It was agreed by all that Ms. Niles will review the notes regarding height and structure and return with a summary for the Commission's approval. She would also like to return with a definition of natural ground level. Discussion regarding Height ensued. Ms. Niles read the height ordinance and noted that the Council sub committee suggested no structure shall exceed a height of 33 feet rather than 35 feet. The Planning Commission all agreed that they preferred the 35 foot height limit. Commissioner Stutz discussed a well designed house on Country Way. It was agreed by all that this item will be continued to the next meeting. Discussion regarding non -conforming structures ensued. Ms. Niles read the ordinance with suggested modifications, changing "rebuilding" to "remodeling." She noted this was changed for those non -conforming structures that were located in setbacks. If they were going to take down the whole project, 4W the Commission wanted them to rebuild it conforming to setbacks, height limits and MDA and MFA requirements. The Town has allowed keeping overage since Planning Commission Minutes APPROVED 2/23/94 February 9, 1994 Page 11 the use of the formula in 1989. Commissioner Schreiner noted that other towns require bringing up to existing standards. Ms. Niles noted that other towns do not have specific square footage numbers limiting floor area and development area. Another problem discussed was that voluntarily tearing down the whole structure does not address the problem when someone takes down everything except one wall. Ms. Niles noted that this was another issue which she would like to add under New Business, a discussion as to how much removal constitutes tearing the house down or what is the limit on a remodel. Commissioner Stutz discussed a house that is destroyed by fire and rebuilt versus a house that is voluntarily demolished. Vice -Chairman Ellinger was not sure they needed to determine intent of the demolish. In terms of setbacks, height and safety would have to say it would have to comply. He did not want to decide if one fell down accidentally or another was taken down intentionally. Ms. Niles pointed out that there was another section in non -conformities regarding repair of damages. Vice -Chairman Ellinger suggested wording, "it shall be required to be rebuilt, etc." to add "if rebuilt, it shall be required, etc." Discussion regarding conservation easement setbacks from creeks ensued. The Commission agreed with the added wording. Commissioner Stutz mentioned that the Santa Clara Valley Water District has held two meetings regarding their plans for Adobe Creek from El Camino Real to the Bellucci property. It was suggested that an update from the meetings would be included under New Business for the next Planning Commission meeting. Commissioner Stutz disagreed with the requirement of being a minimum of 25 feet back from the top of bank. She felt that the required distance from top of bank to the house needed to be determined by the particular house on the particular creek. Ms. Niles noted this was why they were adding in the second sentence regarding greater setbacks may be required along major creeks in the Town. She was not sure if they wanted anything less than 25 feet. Commissioner Stutz discussed the Ahrens property on Old Altos Road and the requirement of 25 feet back from the creek. That creek had been in there in that water course since the early 1900's. That lot showed absolutely no damage. They had barbecue equipment down there with bricks that showed water lines and had a couple of right hand turns. The creek was controlled and it fit the property. She felt is was a shame that they required non use of so much of the land simply to take the 25 foot setback. It was agreed to add a sentence to the effect that the requirement of lesser setbacks may be allowed in unusual circumstances. Vice -Chairman Ellinger discussed a Frank Lloyd Wright house in Pennsylvania known 4 as Falling Water. The creek runs through the house. If Commissioner Stutz' position is really well understood, the idea of a setback is not a threatening issue. He felt what was Planning Commission Minutes APPROVED 2/23/94 February 9, 1994 Page 12 being said was that a bulldozer has no place being in a creek. Grading a creek is not wise. If you have to sink a pile to support a structure that you are going to somehow support over a creek, you can come up with magnificent settings which would be very much at home in the creek settings and could be done safely in this Town. If you do not disturb it as a riparian habitat, do not alter the water course and if you are not encountering additional risk by putting the structure below a so called flood level that might occur, it would seem like a lovely place to be. Vice -Chairman Edinger noted since this section is titled "creek protection" it should include wording noting that creeks and their banks shall be protected as in a natural state. It should not be disturbed by the building or grading process. Any location of building shall be done with safety as a primary concern followed by protection of the riparian habitat and the existing course of the stream. It was noted that the problem with the Adobe Creek section was that the Town did not have the funding to maintain that large a section of creek so they did not want to take the maintenance authority. There could have been a natural stream there. However, the Council said they did not want to take on the liability and maintenance because the Town did not have the funding to keep it up. Vice -Chairman Edinger discussed his comments noted on page 2 of the staff report regarding MDA and MFA. He noted that the concept he was trying to convey was that those calculations should be based on the unencumbered portion of the lot. The reason he was bringing it up now was that a creek would have associated with it a conservation easement or an open space easement. As such, he would back out that area from the lot. It does not mean you could not build there with a variance. He felt they should take off square footage for conservation easements. Oak tree protection was also discussed. Ms. Niles will prepare a report with the Commissioners statements to be brought back to the next meeting prior to forwarding on to the City Council. Planning Commission Minutes APPROVED 2/23/94 February 9, 1994 Page 13 6. NEW BUSINESS 6.1 Discussion of conditions of approval relating to landscape deposits. Ms. Niles discussed making the amount of the deposit coincide with the cost of the number of trees being required for mitigation and how much they cost to purchase and install. Ms. Niles felt this was a good suggestion, noting that when looking at a plan they need to remember to specifically state which trees they are requiring for mitigation and what decorative plantings are not a concern. It would be the mitigation and the erosion control planting they would want to get a cost on. It was suggested asking the applicant and/or their landscape architect to submit a proposal along with the landscape plan which would indicate the cost of the proposed trees. Vice -Chairman Ellinger would like to see a way of depicting the mitigating landscaping that reflects its location and scale and only that without the visual clutter. If all they are requiring are six oak trees, that would be all he would prefer sketched on the plan, letting the property owner decide the rest. Commissioner Stutz felt they always need the elevation lines indicated. Ms. Niles would advise not to limit a landscape plan to only trees . On some properties the shrubs right next to the house help with mitigation. It was agreed by consensus to forward a request to the City Council to have the Environmental Design and Protection Committee provide a list of average plant costs to buy and install. Ms. Niles noted that she would like to add to an upcoming agenda a discussion regarding how much of a house can be removed before it is no longer a remodel. OLD BUSINESS 7.1 Discussion of Interpretation of what qualifies as hardscape-continued. There was a site visit by the Commission. The following comments were made: it was not desirable for a walkway or patio; it will require a great deal of upkeep; visually appealing; uses a great deal of water; they would like to see someone play tennis on the surface; applicants would only use this type of court if they did not have enough MDA; very dusty; could never use the court without watering it; very porous and dry. The Commission agreed by consensus to continue the discussion. 7.2 Discussion of the Town's Adopted Color Board -continued. This item requires further work and will be placed on a future agenda. Planning Commission Minutes APPROVED 2/23/94 February 9, 1994 Page 14 4 7.3 Report from the Design Guidelines Sub -Committee. Commissioner Schreiner commented that the last of the corrections were forwarded to Carrasco and Associates. 7.4 General Plan Elements -Continued a. Path and Trail Element -Continued (to be re -scheduled by Staff). b. Land Use Element -Continued. C. Circulation Element -Continued (to be re -scheduled by Staff). d. Conservation Element -Continued. e. Scenic Highways Elements -Continued. f. Noise Element -Continued to February 15,1994 at 5:30 p.m. g Seismic Safety/Safety Elements -Continued to February 15, 1994 at 5:30 p.m. h. Open Space Element -Continued. 8. APPROVAL OF MINUTES 8.1 Approval of the January 12, 1994 Minutes -Continued MOTION SECONDED AND PASSED: Motion by Commissioner Stutz, seconded by Commissioner Schreiner and passed by consensus to approve the minutes of January 12,1994 with Commissioner Sinunu abstaining and Chairman Comiso absent. 8.2 Approval of the January 26,1994 Minutes. MOTION SECONDED AND PASSED: Motion by Commissioner Stutz, seconded by Commissioner Schreiner and passed by consensus to approve the minutes of January 26, 1994 with Commissioner Simmu abstaining and Chairman Comiso absent with the following changes: page 7, paragraph 4, changing "problem" to "current concern", page 26, paragraph one, adding "the Planning Commission" to the first sentence; and page 14, paragraph two, to include Commissioner Stutz comments regarding the history of the ordinance and the changes, if possible. Planning Commission Minutes APPROVED 2/23/94 February 9, 1994 Page 15 9. REPORT FROM THE SITE DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE MEETING 9.1 LANDS OF RAMSAY,13060 Alta Lane North; A request for a Site Development Permit for Landscaping. Ms. Niles noted that the Site Development Permit was not approved with conditions. After much discussion, the application was continued to return to staff as directed with another landscape plan addressing all the concerns noted at the meeting. 10. ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned by consensus at 10:00. Respectfully submitted, Laniberge Planning Secretary L