Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout02/23/1994Minutes of a Regular Meeting APPROVED Town of Los Altos Hills PLANNING COMMISSION Council cc: Cas: February 23,1994,7:00 P.M. mbers, 26379 Fremont Road 1. ROLL CALL AND PLEDGE OF At LEGIANCE 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, Schreiner, Sinunu & Stutz Absent: Commissioner Takamoto Staff: Linda Niles, Town Planner; Jeff Peterson, City Engineer; Suzanne Davis, Assistant Planner; Lani Lonberger, Planning Secretary Chairman Comiso requested the meeting be adjourned in memory of Dave Stevenson, husband of Fran Stevenson, who passed away the first week of February. 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 • 9' 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. Planning Commission Minutes APPROVED February 23, 1994 Page 2 4. REPORT FROM THE CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF FEBRUARY 16.1994 4.1 Commissioner Sinunu noted he presented his report to the City Council. There were no Public Hearing items on the City Council agenda. 4.2 Planning Commission representative for March 2nd will be Chairman Comiso and Commissioner Ellinger. 5. PUBLIC HEARINGS 5.1 LANDS OF TWOMBLY,13621 Burke Road; A request for a Site Development Permit and a Conditional Development Permit for a New Residence. Continued to the March 9,1994 agenda to allow for re -noticing to include a variance request. 5.2 LANDS OF GALLIE/MUNYAK,12804 CLAUSEN COURT; A request for a Site Development Permit for a New Residence. Revised Conditions of Approval were provided to the Commission, applicants and the public. The figures on the plan and the staff report were different. Ms. Niles was asked which figures were correct. She responded that the figures in the staff report were correct. In answer to a question she noted that the front 40 foot setback was counted from Clausen Court public right-of-way. The remainder of the setback is 30 feet all along the property line. Commissioner Ellinger discussed the slope and the drainage. The sheet flow off the back of the lot which would ordinarily be going to the house appears it would be trapped by a catch trench at an inflection point of the property and taken to a dissipater. Normally this would dissipate the immediate flow. However, it appears to run right along the side of the house and does not dump it out toward the street but in particular, is dumped onto a 36 inch oak tree. He also saw another trench for another dissipater which would have to be dug right through the root circle of the oak tree. Mr. Peterson commented that the drainage plans submitted at this stage are conceptual. Since there is always a possibility of a design being denied, staff does not require a great deal of detail at this stage. At the time the building plans are submitted, drainage is reviewed in detail. At this stage, staff looks at the drainage to see if it can be accommodated on the site. Since the feature trees are down in the front where the water is to flow, Commissioner f Ellinger asked Mr. Peterson if he felt the drainage could be accommodated on this site. Mr. Peterson responded yes. They could be required to extend the dissipaters beyond Planning Commission Minutes APPROVED February 23, 1994 4 Page 3 those trees. The drainage along the fire road runs down to the cul-de-sac. They may need to bring it down closer to the driveway and accommodate that drainage somehow, either as it runs along the fire road, making sure it does not erode, or possibly cross the fire road. This will be something that Engineering will work out with the applicants' design engineers. Commissioner Ellinger expressed concern. It was his experience with the Town that they do not permit dumping flows either into drainage facilities along a road or ducting it specifically to off-site. They have very little land on the other side of the fire road. He felt that this would require considerable amount of flexibility to figure the drainage out. Mr. Peterson agreed with Commissioner Ellinger. Chairman Comiso suggested staff keep the site grading plan so when they have a final grading plan, the Planning Commission can review. She also noted that when she reviews a plan she likes to see contour lines on all of the property. In discussing the asphalt, she asked if the asphalt on the pedestrian trail and the emergency access counted against the applicants. The response from staff was no. OPENED PUBLIC HEARING Edward Munyak, 3649 Lindenwood Drive, San Jose, applicant. He discussed the acreage, siting the house down as low as possible, setback in emergency road and very little flexibility as to where they can move the house. He felt the present design was the most unobtrusive siting. He noted that originally they had shown a single access from the driveway but they were asked to consider a circular driveway. He discussed relief from condition #16 regarding an easement being recorded for the driveway access to lot 5 prior to submittal of plans for building permits. He felt they were innocent bystanders in this situation as this was apparently improperly handled prior to their purchasing the property. He noted that they have access to their property. It is lot 5 that has the problem. They have written numerous letters to the Clausen estate to resolve the recording of the easement. He was informed that the Clausen estate would settle when they receive the estimate on how much extra it will cost to provide the access for the utilities through that easement. Mr. Peterson commented that when the tentative map was approved for the subdivision it showed that the driveway for lot 5 would access off of lot 6. This was due to grades coming off the cul-de-sac. This is the only feasible spot to access lot 5. However, this could not be shown on the map because you cannot grant an easement to yourself. There was only one subdivided and granting of an easement needed to be accomplished at a later time. Staff's standard procedure when dealing with easements is to acquire them prior to allowing building permits to be submitted to the building department. Cindy Gallie, 3649 Lindenwood Drive, San Jose, applicant. She asked who records the easement, lot 5 or lot 6. Mr. Peterson clarified the responsibility stating that lot 6, the applicants, grant the easement to lot S. There would have to be a grant deed drawn up $O, with legal description granting to lot 5. Both parties would need to be signatories. It 4 Planning Commission Minutes February 23, 1994 Page 4 APPROVED was to the benefit of lot 5 to sign the recorded easement as this gives them access to the road through the applicants' property. Mr. Peterson noted that this process should not delay the applicants submitting building plans. The Town will make sure it is in the proper format with the signatures of the granting parties. At that time, the project can be moved to the building stage. Ms. Niles discussed the request for a circular driveway with the Engineering Technician, who reviewed the plan, making sure they provide adequate turn around. In order to accomplish this the circular driveway was an option given to the applicants. If there is another option, it could be explored. In this case, they are limited on space. They have steep slopes so they are trying to get in and out as easily as possible. There was a correction noted on the Chips Davis Designs' letter, page one, paragraph two showing "41 dBA". It should read "45 dBA". Commissioner Schreiner asked the applicants if they were planning any outdoor area other than the concrete patio in the back, as she is concerned with noise. Ms. Gallie noted because of the setback they have no room for other outdoor area. Commissioner Schreiner asked if they considered any other type of noise buffering. She had walked up the emergency road and the area is very noisy. Ms. Gallie felt that by putting the living area behind the house was the best and most effective buffer. Any living area in the front would be very noisy. Commissioner Schreiner asked if they would consider putting some type of earth berm on the side. Ms. Gallie noted there was a natural berm on the west side. CLOSED PUBLIC HEARING Commissioner Stutz noted that the story poles were not to the roof height of the house. The story poles only showed the corners and she could not tell the height. She noticed from the staff report that 90 c.y. of material will be removed from the site. Town policy is not to remove any soil from the site, if possible. She felt the soil could be placed on the freeway side of the property along the west side of the emergency road which would build up a berm. She felt the Planning Commission should refuse to let them export any soil from this property. If anything, they need more soil brought in. She questioned the setback from the emergency road as a 30 foot setback. She felt it was unduly harsh on this piece of property and not necessary. Ms. Davis noted that staff did extensive research relating to the setback from the emergency road. Everything she found in the subdivision file kept pointing to a 30 foot setback. They do require setbacks being measured from the edge of engress/ingress or from easements. It is unfortunate that this easement is right through the middle of the lot as opposed to being right at the edge of the property. However, there was not any special provision made for the setback when the subdivision was approved. Planning Commission Minutes APPROVED February 23, 1994 Page 5 Ms. Niles commented that the map was recorded as shown and Council approved the emergency access road through what is not the edge of the property. No provision in any of the records, minutes or notes was made for a lesser setback. The staff informed the applicant they could go through the variance process. A variance might be considered because of the severe constraints. However there were not guarantees. The applicants chose not to go through the variance process. Chairman Comiso felt that the City Council really did not see this problem when they were looking at the emergency access road. Council does want the Planning Commission to bring such situations to their attention. Commissioner Stutz noted that when the subdivision was being reviewed, most of the concern related to noise. She did not recall reviewing a map showing the emergency road. Ms. Niles agreed, stating this configuration was not put on until the City Council public hearing. There had been a different configuration for the emergency road. It was modified to what they see in front of them. Commissioner Stutz noted that Council did not include a turn around at the top of the emergency road on this property. A turn around will have to be installed. Since they cannot have the turn around by the gate because it is on the neighbor's property, it will have to be down at the edge of the applicants property. She felt this was essential for safety. She commented that the 36 inch oak shown on the plan is in very poor condition and would need at least five major 4 limbs removed immediately. She also did not feel the house was set into the hill. A house that is set into the hill will have the regular normal contour come down and hit the back of the house. From the back of the house you will think it is a one story house or at the most, a story and a half house. You would not see the whole two stories. She also objected to putting any kind of a patio in the back which would have to take the dirt further back. She discussed a flat acre house and not treating it as a hillside lot. She would prefer a one story house which would be much better from the noise factor. She would be willing to give this lot any kind of variance in order to reduce it to a one story house, waiving the variance fees. Commissioner Ellinger agreed with Commissioner Stutz' comments. He discussed the bulky design, particularly on the west side and the flat lot design. He would rather have the variance so the house would blend into the land and follow the general contour. He felt this would make the drainage concerns easier to resolve. He agreed with the change in wording of condition #16 as discussed by the applicant and City Engineer so the applicant could submit requested paperwork so they do not have to wait for the actual recording process. He proposed continuing the application with the consent of the applicants which he felt was preferable over denying the applicant. If the applicant concurred with continuance, he felt the project should go through a reasonable site development analysis. It would probably lead to some additional ideas and some support for whatever plan returns. If the project included a variance request, it would need that support. He would not want to recommend a variance without Planning Commission Minutes APPROVED February 23, 1994 40 Page 6 knowing the details. He asked the applicants if they would accept a continuance for re- design. Five minutes break to provide the applicants with time for discussion before making a decision. The Planning Commission recommended that the City Council be a part of the site analysis because they felt a variance may be appropriate. Otherwise, it will be very difficult to advise site planning and the applicants. Commissioner Ellinger commented that they could request City Council action on the following basis: a lot that is minimal; heavily encumbered; minimal lot by an easement that was not recorded in a normal fashion; an effective setback where you might have expected something more like 60 feet; it appears to be unduly constrained. It would be on the basis of this sort of findings on the Planning Commission level, without even looking at the design of the house, that they could request the Council to act. Ms. Niles commented that the Council is in favor of the preliminary or conceptual review process. She will check with the City Attorney to see if there would be any way they could take a request for a preliminary review to the Council at their next meeting. The problem with this would be that they would not have any design to show them of a possible variance. Chairman Comiso did not feel they could ask the applicants to come in with another design. First they need to ask the applicants their preference of action. Commissioner Ellinger suggested the Planning Commission take no action and refer the application to the Council. Chairman Comiso suggested continuing the application, go to the next Council meeting explaining the circumstances, requesting site analysis and see if there would be an indication that a variance would be possible. They would also ask Council to delete the Planning Commission from the next process. The denial/appeal process was also discussed. RE -OPENED PUBLIC HEARING Ms. Gallie commented that they had presented a plan which met all the Town requirements. Now again they would have to go through a lengthy process She indicated that they would be open to re -design and continuance. Mr. Munyak discussed the setback and requested some relief. The Commission discussed the variance process and some of their concerns. Commissioner Ellinger explained his comment regarding the design of the project, stating his experience with cutting into slopes in Town and creating 2 to 1 slope situations are not desirable. Both erosion and slump slides do occur with some regularity. He would prefer not putting something of value at the base of the slope. In Planning Commission Minutes APPROVED February 23,1994 t Page 7 this case, their house. Another concern was that the placement of the two story house without something to break up the visual impact was not favorable. He was not suggesting a bigger house or a one story house but he would like it visually broken up. Chairman Comiso was not against the wall on the west side. However it does need to be mitigated. She did not care if it was mitigated with shrubbery which she felt was a good sound buffer. She did realize that the bulk on the west side of the property was to keep the noise out. Commissioner Stutz clarified that shrubbery will not totally mitigate the noise. She suggested, in order to mitigate the wall that, instead of digging out for the patio, they set the second story back over towards the back of the lot about 10 to 15 feet. This would do a lot for the front of the house and help break the feeling of a bulky house. The Planning Commission representative for the City Council meeting of March 2nd is Commissioner Takamoto. In his absence it was decided that Chairman Comiso and Commissioner Ellinger would be the representatives. They would explain this project to the City Council. Commissioner Ellinger noted that he would discuss the fact that the Planning Commission has reviewed the project and felt the site was encumbered. The Commission is recommending that there be a grant of a variance but they were not requesting it for a specific design. This would only be to improve the siting of the building, not its size. It was recommended that a short summary be provided to the City Council with the Commission's concerns to be placed in their packet. Chairman Comiso would like to see the 30 foot ingress easement negated. She would be in favor of a variance to delete it from this piece of property. Commissioner Schreiner thought the emergency access road might be one that is heavily used by bicycles and horseback riders. She felt the applicant should realize that this road does not go anywhere. People will be going right past their house and they will want some privacy. Chairman Comiso clarified her statement noting that all she would like to do is ask for relief from the 30 foot setback. The applicant asked for a 10 foot easement rather than the 30 foot which would give them flexibility. The Commissioners agreed. Mr. Munyak suggested an additional 20 feet which would be 10 feet from the road. A discussion ensued regarding the bulb which was not included as the fire department did not feel it necessary for a turn around for emergency vehicles. It was felt with a paved road they would get traffic. Mr. Munyak suggested putting posts that are removable like the ones on the top of the road placed right past their driveway which would prevent cars from going up the road and having to back down. The fire department would take out those posts as they would the posts at the top of the road. The posts would be just past their driveway in the emergency access. It was suggested placing a "Private Driveway" sign at the bottom of the road. L Planning Commission Minutes APPROVED February 23, 1994 Page 8 CLOSED PUBLIC HEARING MOTION SECONDED, AMENDED AND PASSED: Motion by Commissioner Ellinger, seconded by Chairman Comiso, amended and passed for the following: to continue for redesign; allow rewording for condition #16; permit the Planning Commission to summarize their discussion and recommendation to the City Council at their March 2nd meeting in order to get a reading on a possible variance which would specifically permit an additional 20 feet of relief on the easement to accommodate a replacement or re-siting of a structure; and waive the variance fees. AYES: Chairman Comiso, Commissioners Schreiner, Simmu, Stutz, Cheng & Ellinger NOES: None ABSENT: Commissioner Takamoto 5.3 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): Zoning Ordinance 4Wa. 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. Discussion regarding floor area ensued. Commissioner Schreiner discussed a new concept. The ordinance reads that they are measuring the distance of floor area between the upper surface of the floor, and the upper surface of the floor or the underside of the roof directly above it, etc. In other words, what they are measuring is the inside of the house and saying anything over 17 feet should be counted twice. She would like consideration for, rather than measuring the distance from the inside, measure the vertical distance from the outside from the natural grade to 17 feet and anything above 17 feet count twice. She felt in this way they would not be concerned with how many floors are inside. They would simply be concerned with the height and they would be measuring it from the outside. You could have one floor as much as 17 feet and anything above that would be counted as another Planning Commission Minutes APPROVED February 23, 1994 Page 9 floor. Ms. Niles noted that this is current procedure. If you count from the outside it would include the attic which is not desirable. Chairman Comiso noted that the last sentence under floor area, "space meeting the definition', asking which definition. Ms. Niles noted it would be the new definition. It was decided that the sentence should read, "Space meeting the definition of a "basement" is exempted from counting as floor area." Dick Childress discussed what he has seen in other jurisdictions relating to height. The 17 feet is standard throughout other cities and it is usually an inside measure. One of the primary reasons is that it is difficult for staff to decide the heights. When they look at a set of building plans it is easy to determine areas. As Commissioner Stutz pointed out, ceiling heights preclude getting two stories. Another item he noted in the heights definition is chimneys and appurtenances. He suggested that appurtenances might be defined. He suggested limiting the square footage of the appurtenances that can protrude upward to some number to 10 to 15 square feet. Another comment related to grading and the natural grade level. He felt it was unclear exactly what the natural grade would be. He asked if the Commission was excluding any grading to be used to contour the lot before building. Ms. Niles noted the purpose was to keep the lots in as much in their natural terrain as possible. The problem is there are many lots in Town that have been flat pad graded 30-40 years ago and that happens to be the natural topo 4 now. She noted it creates problems in some cases but overall the intent is to keep the character of the bills. It was agreed to add "stairways within stairwells are exempt from counting twice." PASSED BY CONSENSUS: Ms. Niles will forward "Floor Area" definition to the City Council with noted changes made by Ms. Niles. Discussion regarding structure height and natural grade ensued. Suggested changes were adding "proposed" in front of 'building" on the third line; and removing "not withstanding" replacing it with "but shall not include." Commissioner Schreiner asked what if an applicant comes in and has re -graded a huge subdivision, taking down all the natural grade surface. Ms. Niles noted that the Town's process is to look at those things. When there is a subdivision approved, sometimes they are approved with a new grading plan which will become the new natural grade. This is not uncommon in many communities. Mr. Peterson noted that you can improve every site, drainage wise, by raising the house up above the rest of the ground, high and dry. We would not want an applicant to feel we would approve this new natural grade because they have improved the drainage of the house. We would not want to give an applicant some type of an advantage for improving drainage. Planning Commission Minutes APPROVED February 23, 1994 Page 10 Mr. Childress felt what they were looking for was control of the height from some grade. They need to be able to control that grading.. They have a grading plan approval on all of the sites, as he understands it, so what they are really saying is that a structure should be measured from the existing ground or from an approved grading plan if different from the natural grade. What they want to say is that as long as they control the grade, plan and approval they have control. The way it is now written is that if you dig the dirt down, then you have to take it from that point. Rather than saying "from the building pad" you say "or from an approved grading plan, if different" In this way, you have full control because they approve all grading. This would give them maximum flexibility. Ms. Niles commented that this still puts the cart before the horse because the grading plan is not approved until after submittal of plans and public hearing process. When you look at the code, you cannot be sure what you will get approved. Mr. Peterson would have one concern in that this might start driving the design of the lot knowing the approved grading plan is what the raw height would be measured from. He felt this would have too much of an impact on the design. People would modify their grading to get the height as opposed to fitting it into the site. 40because Ellinger commented that the General Plan states there is no grading plan because the Town in general does not approve of any grading. It was noted that the Council will be made aware of public input. PASSED BY CONSENSUS: Ms. Niles will prepare a report with the Commission and public input regarding Height, Structure and Natural Grade to be forwarded to the City Council. Discussion regarding Height ensued. Under (c) (1) suggested wording for the second sentence as follows: However, the maximum height including chimney and appurtenances shall not exceed thirty (30) feet. Commissioner Ellinger suggested wording include the following: the building may not have any point higher than 35 feet above a plain measured from the lowest point of the building or no point of the building may be higher than the plain set 35 feet above the lowest point of the building. Commissioner Sinunu suggested wording as follows: no structure shall exceed a height of 35 feet above a plain measuring the lowest topographical elevation of the structure. Commissioner Ellinger suggested wording as follows; all points of the building must lie within a 35 foot horizontal band based at the p lowest elevation of the building. Or, all points of the building must lie within a 35 foot fir, horizontal band based at the lowest visible finished grade. Planning Commission Minutes APPROVED February 23, 1994 Page 11 Mr. Childress noted he could provide staff with the wording as he has been through this a number of times in other cities. Basically what other cities state is that the height of the building shall not exceed 35 feet above the elevation at which the structure contacts the lowest grade. He could provide staff with cleaner wording. The bolded wording was discussed under "Height". Commission Ellinger did not agree with the first bolded sentence. He felt this was a cruel and unusual design constraint because the appearance of three story facades are not precise. Their appearance on a two story drawing elevation does not mean that they appear on a finished product. A three story facade is something that may appear on a two story drawing flat plan. A planner could look at the drawing and say this is a three story facade. What they are really saying is that if you have three separate levels, as long as it was stepping down the hill, it would be acceptable. Commissioner Simmu felt the whole bold wording was too cumbersome and unwieldy. He felt all of this general language should be addressed in the General Plan. The zoning and planning ordinances should be very specific. He suggested a comment about a reference to the General Plan. He felt the general policy should be referred to in the General Plan, not in the zoning ordinance. 4WMs. Niles appreciated the comments. She noted that the bolded paragraph was one of those that the zoning ordinance amendment subcommittee of the Council was really concerned with. If there was a way of expressing to the public their opinions relating to three story facades, it may be accomplished in the General Plan. She thought it was a good suggestion to include the revised bolded wording into the General Plan. Commissioner Ellinger suggested a motion to delete the bolded wording beginning with "The appearance of" and ending with "under Article 11." This paragraph should contain three separate thoughts ( three story facades, appeals & approval process, and General Plan elements relating to with natural features & siting on lots) and that they should be addressed in the appropriate places, whether it be the General Plan or the Guidelines. Commissioner Schreiner felt strongly regarding having something somewhere in these ordinances that referenced specifically to a three story facade. She did agree that the paragraph in question was very confusing and did not belong under Height. Chairman Comiso noted that the problem with the three story facade as written is that it does not say anything. This is a policy and/or a guideline. Planning Commission Minutes APPROVED February 23, 1994 Page 12 MOTION SECONDED AND PASSED: Motion by Commissioner Ellinger, seconded by Commissioner Sinunu and passed by consensus to delete the bolded wording beginning with "The appearance of and ending with "under Article 11" with Commissioner Takamoto absent. PASSED BY CONSENSUS: Ms. Niles will prepare a report with the Commission and public input regarding Height to be brought back to the next meeting prior to forwarding on to the City Council with the bolded paragraph removed and including wording regarding appurtenances as defined in the ordinance are small architectural features such as (give examples) noted. This item will follow (1) and will be listed as (2). The last paragraph stating "by the parameters in items (1), (2) and (3)" will be deleted. A three story facade was discussed. It was felt the Commission had eliminated some of the situation by counting floor area of garages. However, if anyone does not like three story facades and feels strongly about the subject, they should be able to describe what it is. They need a definition of a three story facade. This is not addressed in the General Plan. The Town does not have an ordinance not permitting three story facades. It was agreed by consensus to form a subcommittee including Commissioners Simmu (Chairman), Commissioners Ellinger and Schreiner to study and provide a write up `, regarding "design eliminates or three story facades" to be included in "Height" as 10- 1.504d and to be brought back to the next meeting. The General Plan will also be investigated to see if this can be included. PASSED BY CONSENSUS: To continue the Zoning Ordinance, section c and the Site Development Ordinance, section a. 6. NEW BUSINESS 6.1 Discussion regarding how much of a house can be removed before it is no longer considered a remodel -continued. 6.2 Report relating to the Santa Clara Valley Water District's recent meetings concerning the Adobe Creek improvements. Mr. Peterson discussed the Santa Clara Valley Water District's plans for creek improvements. Commissioner Stutz discussed the possibility of the Water District buying the land for their easements as she felt property owners should be compensated for land taken. 6.3 City Council direction regarding the Planning Commission Minutes. Planning Commission Minutes APPROVED February 23, 1994 Page 13 Commissioner Sinunu commented on the City Council request for Planning Commission minutes being provided for their packet and perhaps using a laptop computer during the meetings. Their concept was that the minutes were not useful unless received prior to the meeting. It was noted that the City Council felt that the minutes were too detailed and suggested "motion" minutes. The Planning Commission agreed that they preferred detailed minutes. After some discussion, it was felt summary minutes could be provided for the City Council packet to provide requested information. 6.4 Joint City Council and Planning Commission meeting scheduled for March 30th at 5:30 p.m. Chairman Comiso requested topic suggestions from the Commissioners. Commissioner Schreiner suggested discussing the length of time that they are taking to complete the General Plan. She would like to show the City Council a few examples of what is presently in the General Plan (Pathway and Recreation Elements as an example), showing them the present element compared to the finished element to illustrate the amount of revisions, new concept and new focus necessary. She would also like them to see the Seismic Element. Commissioner Ellinger suggested a discussion regarding "getting ambushed" by the process. He felt the process itself continues to be a mystery. He felt they could discuss the application process overall. The diagram from the Guidelines Handbook was requested for discussion to possibly see where the problems lie in the application process. Commissioner Ettinger also discussed the need for proper maps which would help the staff, Planning Commission, residents and Realtors. 6.5 Required tree fencing. The standard wording for tree fencing states "Prior to beginning any grading or construction operation, all significant trees in the area of construction shall be fenced at the dripline. The fencing shall be of a materiel and structure to clearly delineate the dripline. Town staff must inspect the fencing and the trees prior to issuance of building permits. No storage of equipment, vehicles or debris shall be allowed within the dripline of these trees." Ms. Davis provided photographs of the good, bad and the ugly relating to fencing of trees. It was suggested enlarging the photos and displaying them in the Council Chambers. 7.1 Discussion of Interpretation of what qualifies as hardscape. This item will be removed from old business. 7.2 General Plan Elements -Continued 4, a. Path and Trail Element -Continued (to be re -scheduled by Staff). Planning Commission Minutes APPROVED February 23, 1994 Page 14 4W 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 April 12,1994 at 5:30 p.m.. g. Seismic Safety/Safety Elements -Continued to April 12,1994 at 5:30 p.m. Commissioner Ellinger discussed the recently publicized thrust faults. He indicated that these thrust faults are not on Town or William Cotton's maps. He did not feel this news would change the Seismic Safety/Safety Element. He felt maps should be included. h. Open Space Element -Continued. `, 8. APPROVAL OF MII,IUTES 8.1 Approval of the February 9,1994 Minutes. MOTION SECONDED AND PASSED: Motion by Commissioner Stutz, seconded by Commissioner Sinunu and passed by consensus to approve the minutes of February 9, 1994 with Chairman Comiso abstaining and Commissioner Takamoto absent. 9. REPORT FROM THE SITE DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE MEETING None. 10. ADTOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned by consensus at 10:30 p.m. in memory of Dave Stevenson. Respectfully submitted, Laz Lo e, Planning Secretary