Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout03/09/19944w Minutes of a Regular Meeting APPROVED 3/23/94 Town of Los Altos Hills PLANNING COMMISSION Wednesday, March 9,1994,7:00 p.m. Council Chambers, 26379 Fremont Road cc: Cassettes m)-94 (4) 1. ROLL AL 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, Schreiner, Simmu, Stutz & Takamoto Staff: Linda Niles, Town Planner; Jeff Peterson, City Engineer; Suzanne Davis, Assistant Planner; Lani Lonberger, Planning Secretary M: M�► '• 1: tl ��L 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. Planning Commission Minutes APPROVED 3/23/94 March 9,1994 Page 2 AW 4. REPORT FROM THE CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF MARCH 1994 4.1 Chairman Comiso, Commissioners Ellinger and Schreiner attended the meeting. The Commissioners were present to report to the Council regarding Lands of Gallie/Munyak heard at the February 23rd Planning Commission meeting. This subject had been placed on the City Council agenda under 6.2 New Business. An overhead slide of the property was presented showing the lot constraints. The Council agreed that this property was so encumbered, variances might be necessary. Sandy Sloan informed the Council that a variance must be heard at the Planning Commission level. Commissioner Schreiner discussed the Lands of Jabbour landscape plan and the severe drainage problem on the lower lot. Changes to the Brown Act was also discussed. Commissioner Schreiner askeded Ms. Niles to report back to the Planning Commission regarding the changes. 4.2 Planning Commission representative for March 16th will be Commissioner Cheng. 5. PUBLIC HEARINGS 4 5.1 LANDS OF DRAEGER, 27811 Lupine Road; A request for a Site Development Permit for a New Residence. Staff requested a continuance since additional information was not submitted in time for review. 5.2 LANDS OF TWOMBLY,13621 Burke Road; A request for a Site Development Permit, Conditional Development Permit and a Variance to allow required parking in a setback and to exceed the allowable Maximum Floor Area for a New Residence. Ms. Davis discussed the closest sewer connection. The applicants would prefer a sewer connection, however it may be cost prohibitive. They have approval for a septic system shown on the plan. The architect had investigated the connection to sewer. He would be available to answer any questions. Normally, an applicant is required to connect to sewer if they are within 400 feet. This property is beyond that distance. Commissioner Schreiner discussed the staff report regarding the applicant not being aware of the basement interpretation. Therefore the Planning Commission is being asked to grant a variance. She noted the ordinance had been in place for some time and asked if the applicant was not told when he was designing the project. Ms. Davis noted that this basement meets the definition in the zoning code. The City Council has made a more recent interpretation stating that basements are only to be exempt if they are back Planning Commission Minutes APPROVED 3/23/94 March 9, 1994 Page 3 4 filled or the perimeter walls are six feet or more below grade. The problem is that this basement area, even though it is six feet or more below grade, opens into a hallway area which has an exit door and is adjacent to the garage. If it was strictly the garage door that was day -lighted, it would meet the exemption. The applicants followed the zoning ordinance interpretation. When staff looked at the project more closely when the plans were submitted, they realized it did not meet the Council's interpretation. The applicants did not need a variance due to the basement as the project was already over the floor area. If you go strictly by calculations based on the size of the property and the slope it only allows for approximately 2,600 square feet. She further discussed the Condition Development Permit. Chairman Comiso noted there was a maximum and a proposed floor and development area. The Conditional Development Permit allows the Planning Commission to decide if this plan does or does not qualify for any amount square footage. The Commission is setting, for both public hearing items on the agenda for this evening, what they feel is appropriate MDA and MFA. Commissioner Sinunu asked if the maximum calculated was based on the size of the property with the dedications. Ms. Davis responded yes, which made the lot smaller. OPENED PUBLIC HEARING 4 Lou Dorcich, Felton, applicant's architect, did not have a problem with any of the conditions of approval. He stated he would like to apply for a building permit prior to engineering requirements. Mr. Peterson discussed the procedure. In the past staff has had problems with applicants not understanding that engineering and planning conditions are all part of the building permit process. It was noted that this procedure would not delay the project. Commissioner Schreiner discussed the attic and the dormer window. Mr. Dorcich noted that the house was designed last October and at that time attics were counted up to seven feet. Prior to submittal, the rules changed to eight feet so there is a small area in the attic that qualifies as floor area under the Town rules. They are not counting it as area when obtaining a building permit as it is not habitable space. The area is five feet wide by 20 feet long. Within the five foot width the height is eight feet. The dormers actually go into the rooms below. Commissioner Stutz discussed the dormers on the south elevation which make this appear to be a three story house. She suggested skylights rather than dormers. She discussed the problems with dormers. Mr. Dorcich noted that the dormers were actually in the family room kitchen area. The ceiling there is between 13-14 feet. The dormers provide clear story light, the same function as a skylight, but it do it in a more stylized fashion. He tried to dissuade the owners from using skylights in the house 4W Planning Commission Minutes APPROVED 3/23/94 March 9, 1994 Page 4 because of the style. He felt the dormers were consistent with California craftsman style architecture and he would like to keep them. CLOSED PUBLIC HEARING Commissioner Schreiner also had a problem with the three story facade. She looked at the project from Fremont Road. That particular section of the project will be very bulky. You will essentially see three planes looking up. She had difficulty making the first variance finding which notes "exceptional or extraordinary circumstances applicable to the property because the lot is .453 acre, which is much smaller than the Town's required one acre minimum." This lot is less than one half acre. The maximum floor area allowed is 2,700 square feet. The applicant is asking for 3, 700, an extra 1,000 square feet. She felt the design of the house appears very bulky from Fremont Road because of the three story facade and the garage underneath. Commissioner Sinunu had the same difficulty. He felt this lot was very small and the lots around it are also very small lots. A house this size on this lot will dominate the lot. He agreed with Commissioner Schreiner in that this was the purpose of a restriction to keep the house in conformity with the lot. In this case, it keeps it in conformity with the other houses in the neighborhood at 2,700 square feet or something close to that figure. L Commissioner Stutz discussed the excess 154 c.y. of material that will be removed from 6+ the site. Normally they ask that no dirt be removed but be spread to a depth of no more than six inches on an area. She asked if this had been considered. Ms. Niles noted that they did not consider spreading the excess dirt as there is little room left on the lot after placing the house. Commission Stutz discussed the staff report noting the constraints of the lot with the road right-of-way. She noted that this is the same for every lot in Town. She did not feel the applicants were unduly constrained any more than anyone else in Town. Chairman Comiso noted she was on the Planning Commission and Site Analysis when this property was in for review previously. There are not many lots which are half acre or below in Town. When the Town was incorporated the residents who had substandard lots were promised that they would not be penalized. She felt this is what they are doing to some of these smaller lots. They have a situation where people are having a hard time developing and bring these lots up to par. The last owners of this piece of property went through a very hard time trying to get a house approved. She felt the present house design was far better than the previous design. It fits this piece of property. The ordinance does not say they are not allowed to have a three story effect. There is not a 2,700 square foot maximum on this piece of property. Originally, the City Council discussed 3,000+ square feet when heard previously. The Planning Commission must set what they feel is a reasonable amount of square footage for development and floor area for this piece of property. It was inconvenient that this property could not be connected to sewer and being between streets. She felt everyone Planning Commission Minutes APPROVED 3/23/94 March 9,1994 Page 5 4 in Los Altos Hills should have an amount of square footage that they think is livable. She did not feel 3,700 square feet of floor area was excessive for this application. Commissioner Schreiner noted that if you use the formula, one acre is allowed 6,500 square feet. This lot is a half an acre. Doubled, they are asking for 7,400 square feet. Chairman Comiso understood the theory, however she still felt the property was very constrained. Commissioner Cheng felt somewhere around 3,500 square feet was agreeable. You could not look at this the same way you look at a one acre lot by cutting the figure in half. The applicants need to build a house that is livable. She did not like the three story facade. Commissioner Ellinger felt this was a structure that fit in with the general outline. He was not troubled with the height because of the way the lot is shaped. He did not feel it was an overwhelming structure for the lot and it was appropriate. He asked if there was enough outdoor livable area for the applicants as this property is maxed out. Mr. Dorcich noted the applicants did not need additional outdoor area at this time. Chairman Comiso asked staff, if at a later date this property can be connected to a sewer system, will the septic field area be usable for incidental purposes such as a volley ball L— net. Ms. Niles responded yes. Chairman Comiso discussed condition of approval #4 relating to the fencing of trees which Mr. Dorcich understood completely. MOTION SECOND AND PASSED: Motion by Commissioner Ellinger and seconded by Commissioner Cheng to accept the findings for a Variance as proposed by Staff. AYES: Chairman Comiso, Commissioners Takamoto, Cheng & Ellinger NOES: Commissioners Sinunu, Stutz & Schreiner MOTION SECOND AND PASSED: Motion by Commissioner Ellinger and seconded by Commissioner Takamoto to accept the findings for a Conditional Development Permit as proposed by Staff. AYES: Chairman Comiso, Commissioners Cheng, Ellinger & Takamoto NOES: Commissioners Stutz, Schreiner & Sinunu MOTION SECOND AND PASSED: Motion by Commissioner Ellinger and seconded by Commissioner Takamoto to approve the Site Development Permit as conditioned by staff, amending Condition 9 to read as follows: 9. A deed restriction shall be recorded which states that the maximum floor area (MFA) of 3,723 square feet and a maximum development area (MDA) of 6,621 square feet established under these permits is the maximum allowable level of Planning Commission Minutes APPROVED 3/23/94 March 9,1994 Page 6 4W development for the property, and that any further expansion will require Planning Commission approval. AYES: Chairman Comiso, Commissioners Takamoto, Cheng & Ellinger NOES: Commissioners Schreiner, Sinunu & Stutz This item will appear on the City Council consent calendar March 16,1994. 5.3 LANDS OF MASCARENHAS/CHARKOWICZ, 27223 Sherlock Road; A request for a Site Development Permit, Conditional Development Permit and a Variance for encroachment into front and side setbacks, to allow required parking in a setback and to exceed the allowable Maximum Floor Area and Development Area for a New Residence. Ms. Davis provided the Commission and public with corrected figures for floor area and development area. Also noted, Condition 18 requested a Certificate of Compliance being recorded prior to submittal of plans for building permits. The recorded Certificate of Compliance has been received eliminating the need for #18. It was noted that the lot was created in 1931. A letter from Mr. McReynolds, a neighbor, was also provided to the Commission and public regarding this application. L OPENED PUBLIC HEARING Desmond Mascarenhas, 1074 Morningside Drive, Sunnyvale, applicant, was available for questions. Commissioner Ellinger asked Mr. Mascarenhas if he had an opportunity to discuss the project with his neighbors and if so, what was their reaction. Mr. Mascarenhas noted that most of his neighbors were present for the public hearing and would be heard. He had one response from a neighbor who is also present. He also noted he had just received Mr. McReynolds' written response to the project. They had heard from Mr. McReynolds a few days prior and provided him with a copy of their septic plan for his review. He paid for and received today a professional opinion from Questa Engineering Corporation addressing Mr. McReynolds' concern. He provided the Commissioners with copies of this letter for their review. The Commission requested five minute break to review the new information. There was a request to provide information not already in the staff report prior to meetings to allow time to review. Matt Boissevain, 27181 Sherlock Road, neighbor, liked the location of the house. He agreed with Mr. McReynolds regarding leaving the road width as is. He would like them to have more square footage then is normally allowable for this size lot. Chairman Comiso discussed the slope density formula and the Conditional Development Permit. 4 Planning Commission Minutes APPROVED 3/23/94 March 9,1994 Page 7 Mr. Stephen McReynolds, 27110 Moody Court, neighbor, discussed his concerns as noted in his letter. He apologized for the late letter. He would have appreciated being notified earlier regarding the septic system. Chairman Comiso explained this was not the fault of the applicant or the Town. Plans are taken to the Santa Clara County Health Department and they determine where you can place a septic field. Mr. McReynolds noted he did not know about the location of the septic system, in particular the secondary part of the system. He had not seen the response from the Engineering Company. Something he did not mention in this letter was when they have a winter with very heavy rains such as last year, there are springs that form at the bottom of the hill coming out onto his property. Last year he found one spring with a frothy liquid. However, he did not have it analyzed. The proposed septic system is directly above his house. He was very concerned with the slope that the secondary system will be placed on. Commissioner Ellinger discussed parts of Mr. McReynolds' letter relating to power outage, losing electricity for seven days and what would it do to an electric septic pump. Mr. McReynolds noted he was not an engineer or an expert on systems. His guess would be the system would back up and overflow, going down the hill. He discussed the General Plan, in particular the MAPS area. Commissioner Ellinger noted that it was not clear from his letter where he would like to move the house. Mr. McReynolds did not have a problem with the size of the house. His problem with the location of the building was there was a slight curvature from the top down to the edge were the actual house site is located. The reason for requiring a pump sewage system was because the house is located down from the apex. If the house was slightly higher, possibly the pump would not be needed. He felt the 30 foot easement was forcing everything off to the edge. If that could be avoided, some of the solutions would fall into place. He also felt it would be less expensive for the applicant. Mr. Peterson commented that in looking over the plans he noticed that the septic system plan that was designed in 1992 was actually designed for another house. The footprint of the house is different from the footprint on this plan. It looks as if they submitted the old plan which was approved by the Health Department. He felt it was difficult to determine if the design in front of them would require pumping. Desmond Mascarenhas noted it was his understanding that the approval from the Health Department was not based on any specific house design but rather the footprint which is shown on the original plan. They have basically kept with same footprint. Commissioner Ellinger had two questions; does this project actually needed pumping, and how carefully did the Health Department design this system. Possibly it should be reviewed again. Planning Commission Minutes APPROVED 3/23/94 March 9, 1994 Page 8 Kent Harvey, 1624 Creek Drive, San Jose, general contractor, commented that they proposed to change to a gravity feed system. Both Questa Engineering and Santa Clara County have agreed to their design. Presently this is not in writing but a letter is forthcoming. The leach field would remain in the same location with the tanks underneath the driveway. With the gravity feed system, pumps would not be required. Whether switching between drain fields A and B would still be needed was not known. Mr. Harvey was told by the Health Department that there would not be any change to the leach field due to the amount of work done on the project originally. Commissioner Ellinger discussed the letter from Questa Engineering and Mr. McReynolds comment regarding the springs that sometime appear at the base of this hill. The letter was encouraging, indicating a very high percolation rate. He asked if the documents provided to the Health Department could be provided to the neighbors including Mr. McReynolds. Mr. Harvey responded yes, they have been provided with a COPY. John Norheim, 27261 Sherlock Road, neighbor, discussed the project area and he would like to keep the road as narrow as possible. As the closest neighbor to the project, they will not see it. It has been a difficult lot because of the configuration and he was happy with the design. Steve McReynolds discussed the possibility that the County Health Department assumed there was a 30 foot easement that is forcing the septic system to be placed where it is. If the easement is not required, the drainage field could be partially relocated away from the slope. He also noted that if the Town never actually requires a 30-60 foot road he does not see the reason for the dedication. It was his understanding that if it was dedicated the applicant could not put any septic leach field in that area (conservation area). This was an assumption. Mr. Peterson stated that in looking at the old septic plan, what they show is an existing street right-of-way or easement and the leach field is located 10 feet off of that. The Town's ordinances are that you cannot grade within 10 feet of any property line. He was discussing a 30 foot half street right-of-way. Commissioner Stutz discussed Mr. McReynolds' comment regarding the bend in the existing roadway be straightened to conform with the existing easement as noted in his letter. She felt the whole easement could be moved 10 feet. She asked staff what line was the 40 foot setback determined from. Mr. Peterson noted it was determined from the 30 foot half street right-of-way existing line. There was one area of dedication that was required where the road actually protrudes even further into the lot. The reasoning was that, because of the way that this area was developed, there is an existing house on the other side of the street which is 16 feet off their front property line. Relocating the road to the south puts it extremely close to that existing house. There are also fairly $ large oaks that would have to be removed in order to relocate the road. Commissioner Planning Commission Minutes APPROVED 3/23/94 March 9,1994 Page 9 4 Stutz suggested asking the Plann ng Commission to approve a 20 foot easement rather than a 30 foot easement. This would allow more leeway of what can be done to the front of the property. The Commission discussed moving the septic lines and possibly asking the Health Department to reconsider the septic design. Mr. Peterson noted that the way the Towns right-of-way policy reads is that when an application comes in on a private street and there needs to be a determination of the right-of-way width, the Planning Commission will determine the right-of-way width. This was done roughly six to seven months ago on the Sherlock/Norheim property. At that time it was set at 60 feet. The Planning Commission set a precedent for policy. Commissioner Ellinger asked, engineering -wise, if it works to extend those lines toward the south. Mr. Peterson felt fairly confident that it would. Commissioner Stutz asked Mr. Peterson how often after a new primary septic system is installed do they have to use their secondary allotment on the property. Mr. Peterson noted it was contingent on the soil and how it is used. It really depends on the user. CLOSED PUBLIC HEARING All the Commissioners were in agreement with the house, Conditional Development Permit and Variance. Discussion ensued. It was noted how refreshing it is to have the support of the neighbors. Commissioner Ellinger would like staff to investigate the 4 spring at the bottom of the hill mentioned by Mr. McReynolds. There was a suggestion to set the MDA at 5,000 square feet to allow flexibility for outdoor living area. This was acceptable to the Commission and the applicant. MOTION SECONDED AND PASSED: Motion by Commissioner Simmu and seconded by Commissioner Stutz to accept the Conditional Development Permit as proposed by Staff setting the MDA at 5,000 square feet and the MFA at 2,360 square feet. AYES: Chairman Comiso, Commissioners Ellinger, Schreiner, Simmu, Stutz, Takamoto & Cheng NOES: None MOTION SECONDED AND PASSED: Motion by Commissioner Schreiner and seconded by Commissioner Simmu to accept the findings for a variance as proposed by Staff and amended, noted under the Site Development Permit conditions of approval. RE -OPENED PUBLIC HEARING Tom Sherlock, 27260 Sherlock Road, neighbor, did not have objections to the location of the house. CLOSED PUBLIC HEARING 61 Planning Commission Minutes APPROVED 3/23/94 March 9,1994 Page 10 Further discussion ensued. AYES: Chairman Comiso, Commissioners Takamoto, Stutz, Simmu, Schreiner, Ellinger & Cheng NOES: None MOTION SECONDED AND PASSED: Motion by Commissioner Simmu and seconded by Commissioner Stutz to approve the Site Development Permit as proposed by Staff, and modified with the following changes: 9. A deed restriction shall be recorded stating that the MDA of 5,000 square feet and MFA of 2,360 square feet established by the approval of these permits are the allowable levels of development for the property, and that any further expansion requires Planning Commission approval. 10. The approved variances are as follows: a. The northwest corner of the house may encroach a maximum of five feet into the required 30 foot side yard setback. ow b. The northwest corner of the carport may encroach a maximum of two feet into the required 30 foot side yard setback. C. The front facade of the carport may encroach a maximum of six feet into the required 40 foot front yard setback. d. The southeast corner of the house may encroach a maximum of five feet into the required 40 foot front yard setback. The Planning Commission approved a modification to the above variance to allow a maximum 10 foot encroachment into the required 40 foot front yard setback for the carport and/or the house if the property owners desire to redesign the plans. Any modification shall be reviewed and approved by the Town Planner prior to submittal of plans for building permits. Condition 18 noted in the staff report deleted. A new condition 18 follows: 18. The Town is requiring that the septic system be designed without pumps. If this cannot be accomplished, the design shall be re -reviewed by the Planning Commission. Final septic plans shall be approved by the County Health Department and two copies of the approved plan submitted to the Town prior to submittal of plans for building permits. 6W Planning Commission Minutes APPROVED 3/23/94 March 9, 1994 Page 11 4 AYES: Chairman Comiso, Commissioners Takamoto, Cheng, Ellinger, Schreiner, Sinunu & Stutz NOES: None Mr. McReynolds will be kept informed regarding the request for a redesign by the Health Department. This item will appear on the City Council consent calendar March 16,1994. Five minute break. 5.4 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 a. Section 10-1.233 - definition of Floor Area; (forwarded to the City Council) b. Section 10-1.227 - definition of Height, structure; (forwarded to the City Council) C. Section 10-1.401 - Non -conforming Structures; (continued) and d. Section 10-1.504 - Height (forwarded to the City Council). Site Development Ordinance a. Article 7, Section 10-2.702 (b) and (e) - Conservation easement setbacks from creeks. Non -conforming Structures discussion ensued. Suggestions included: to allow change of use without a variance in certain case by case situations; wording may too heavy; may not be fair to allow rebuild of non -conforming structure if burnt down but not if voluntarily taken down to re -design the house; okay to rebuild maximum floor area and maximum development area but not setbacks and heights. Chairman Comiso, Commissioners Ellinger & Stutz agreed on case by case situations but did not agree with the statement regarding if a non -conforming structure is demolished intentionally, and if rebuilt it shall be required to be rebuilt to the standards in effect at the time of submittal for Site Development Permit for the rebuilding. Commissioners Sinunu & Schreiner agreed that if you change the use, it should require a variance. Commissioner Ellinger commented that there were two different legal processes that they were contemplating imposing. One is requiring any action like this, because of the Planning Commission Minutes APPROVED 3/23/94 March 9,1994 Page 12 6 wording that exists right now, to require a variance process. The other legal process is to say this will require a Conditional Use Permit and not necessarily a variance. If you are going case by case all you will need is a CUP. The ordinance would stay unchallenged. He felt the ordinance was too heavy handed and forces them into a variance situation which places the Town in some cost exposure too should some of those things become legally challenged. The Commission would like further discussion regarding re -addressing 4,000 square feet floor area and 5,000 square feet development area for .50 acres and the definition of what it means to remodel a house. PASSED BY CONSENSUS: Ms. Niles will prepare a report with the Commission's input regarding non -conforming structures to be forwarded to the City Council. Conservation easement setbacks from creeks discussion ensued. There were suggested changes to wordings including section e, Creek Protection. "Structures shall be set back a minimum of 15(rather than 25) from the top of bank of all (add" year round flowing") creeks. Commissioner Elhnger discussed structures cantilevered over a creek above the 100 year flood plane. Discussion ensued regarding not counting conservation easements in the formula. Commissioner Ellinger felt if the property was unduly constrained by the conservation easement or a 30% slope, it should not be counted. Ms. Niles commented that in order to visualize the proposal in several different cases you would need some examples showing one acre lots with conservation easement, slope and the changes. PASSED BY CONSENSUS: Ms. Niles will prepare a report with the Commissioners input regarding conservation easement setbacks from creeks to forward to the City Council. The Planning Commission discussed three story facades. There was a request for a study session on this subject, including the Planning Commission and the City Council. Commissioner Ellinger's interpretation of a three story facade follows: A three story facade consisting of a flat surface is an imposing and undesirable feature to nearby properties, especially if a viewer is at an elevation lower than the base of the three story facade. This is true especially for large flat surfaces with features limited to windows. Architectural details such as roof line extensions can add horizontal shadow lines but do not mitigate the three story facade sufficiently to justify these facades. 4 Planning Commission Minutes APPROVED 3/23/94 March 9, 1994 Page 13 Depiction of a "three story facade" can appear when normal flat architectural plans show the vertical walls "straight on" even when a depiction from the side shows the three levels of walls set back from each other. If each wall is offset by 12 feet or more from the walls immediately above or below, that should not be considered as a three story facade. Such offset elevations are, in fact, the result of either stepping a building along a countered slope or cantilevering a room over another space. If the offsetting is not present in the design, then the stacked elements should be limited to two stories plus a roof. When questions remain, staff and site development committee and the Guidelines for Residential Design and Land Use may help. Resolutions will be reached at the Planning Commission Commissioner Ellinger felt they would need pictures or something to see these in a variety of good and bad examples. 30017051 c 4 6.1 Discussion regarding how much of a house can be removed before it is no longer considered a remodel -continued. 6.2 Scheduling of a special Planning commission meeting prior to the March 30th Joint Planning Commission and City Council meeting. PASSED BY CONSENSUS: To schedule a meeting for March 14th at 5:30 p.m. to include Seismic Safety/Safety Elements. OLD BI 7.1 General Plan Elements -Continued a. Path and Trail Element -Continued (continued). Commissioner Schreiner provided suggested changes to the path and trail element which was noted by staff. PASSED BY CONSENSUS: To forwarded to the City Council with the recommended changes. b. Land Use Element -Continued. C. Circulation Element -Continued to March 23rd for report from the City Engineer. Planning Commission Minutes APPROVED 3/23/94 March 9, 1994 Page 14 4 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 March 14 and April 12, 1994 at 5:30 p.m. h. Open Space Element -Continued. Ms. Davis noted that a final decision was not made concerning 'Discussion of Interpretation of what qualifies as hardscape." She suggested placing it back on the agenda under Old Business to hear comments from all the Commissioners. PASSED BY CONSENSUS: To place under Old Business for a final decision by the Planning Commission. 8.1 Approval of the February 23,1994 Minutes. 6 PASSED BY CONSENSUS: To approve the minutes of February 23,1994 with Commissioner Takamoto abstaining. 5. REPORT S•M THE SITE DEVELOPMENT C•ululyll. MEETINATOF MARCH 1, 1994 9.1 LANDS OF VETTERLEIN, 26035 Todd Lane; A request for a Site Development Permit for a Landscape Plan. Approved with conditions. 90.2 LANDS OF CHID, 28530 Matadero Creek Lane; A request for a Site Development Permit for a Driveway Modification. Continued to April 5th for final determination of safety needs. 10. ADIOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned by consensus at 11:10 p.m. Respectfully submitted, LaniLonberger Planning Secretary M