My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
03/30/1994
LOSALTOSHILLS
>
City Clerk
>
City Council Minutes
>
1994
>
03/30/1994
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
4/20/2016 8:39:34 AM
Creation date
5/27/2015 11:10:19 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Minutes
Date
1994-03-30
Description
Joint City Council and Planning Commission Meeting Minutes
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
3
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
View images
View plain text
what was necessary. The Commission discussed how they were working on <br />achieving this goal. <br />Commissioner Schreiner went through the revisions made to the Path and Trail <br />Element as an example of the work involved in making the General Element a <br />workable, readable document. <br />3. DISCUSSION OF THE DEVELOPMENT PROCESS <br />A. Is it achieving its intent? <br />Looking at it from the applicant's view. <br />Johnson believed the development process was working but it was possible that <br />some of the ordinances needed changing. He cited the Town allowing 6,000 square <br />foot homes on an acre as an area that might be modified. Tryon believed the Site <br />Development Process was working much better now. Each site needed to be <br />reviewed in relation to the surrounding lots. Johnson concurred with this <br />statement. Commissioner Ettinger referred to the contributions of the Pathways <br />Recreation Parks Committee, the standard conditions of approval and the lack of <br />complaints by applicants. Dauber asked the Commission to discuss any application <br />where they felt they could not deny an application but where they had serious <br />concerns about the project. In other words the project was not done in conformance <br />with perhaps the intent or overall objective of the ordinances. Tryon noted that the <br />Commissioners can clearly state in the minutes why they vote no on a project or <br />what their qualified approval might be. Comiso stated that she did not believe the <br />Commissioners felt constrained when dealing with applications. Council discussed <br />the availability of the Planning Commission minutes before Council makes a <br />decision on a property. Should a project be delayed until the minutes were <br />available? Tryon believed it was all part of the process and the Council should wait <br />until the minutes were ready so they would have all the information on a project. <br />Comiso believed the residents should be told up front how long the process was <br />going to take. If it should turn out to be a shorter time all the better but the <br />applicant will not have been misted as to the timetable. Council asked about <br />changes to the conditions of approval and whether or not such changes could be <br />made by the Council after approval by the Planning Commission without public <br />hearings. The City Attorney would have to review this issue. A discussion took <br />place on the enforcement of the imposed conditions particularly that of landscaping. <br />Siegel raised the issue of increased remodeling in the future and the grandfathering <br />factor. The City Manager noted that occupancy was the determining factor to get the <br />conditions done. What constitutes a remodel was also addressed. The Commission <br />had begun to discuss this issue at their last meeting. If a new house is built but it is <br />called a remodel what happens to the non -conforming structures? Ettinger stated <br />the importance of consistency. Rebuilds are going to have to comply with the <br />March 30, 1994 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.