Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout8.1 Minutes of a Regular Meeting DRAFT Town of Los Altos Hills PLANNING COMMISSION Wednesday,June 14, 1995,7:00 p.m. Council Chambers,26379 Fremont Road cc: Cassettes#13-95(3) 1. ROLL CALL AND PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE The Planning Commission meeting was called to order at 7:00 p.m. in the Council Chambers at Town Hall. _ Present: Chairman Schreiner,Commissioners Cheng,Doran,Gottlieb,McMahon (arrived at 8:15 p.m.)&Stutz Absent: Commissioner Finn Staff: Curtis Williams,Planning Director;Sheryl Kolf,Assistant Engineer; Suzanne Davis,Planner;Susan Manca,Planner;Lani Lonberger,Planning Secretary 2. PRESENTATIONS FROM THE FLOOR None. 3. CONSENT CALENDAR None. 4. PUBLIC HEARINGS 4.1 LANDS OF GOLDBERG, 12012 Emerald Hill Lane (56-95-ZP-SD-GD); A request for a Site Development Permit for a new residence and pool. Staff reported that the pool equipment location,not shown on the plan,will beout of the setbacks. Worksheet#2 was provided. There was a suggestion to haul their export to the Quarry,if possible. Commissioner Stutz requested the notes from the informal • site analysis meeting,however the current staff had not attended this meeting;notes • from that meeting were not available. Commissioner Gottlieb noted a need for consistency in the preparation of plans and what is allowed in setbacks. OPENED PUBLIC HEARING e Planning Commission Minutes DRAFT June 14, 1995 Page 2 Art Goldberg, 1 Bay Tree Lane,Los Altos, applicant,reported that there was a stepping stone pathway leading from the driveway to the front door of the residence which was shown on the landscape plan Unfortunately,the Commission had not reviewed this plan. He indicated that he w uld not object to a paved walkway (condition#1). At the time of the site analysis meet' g with three Commissioners,several recommendations were discussed hand changed n the current submittal: lowering the overall height of the house from 27 feet from e 'sting grade to 23 feet from existing grade;added additional steps in the house;stepped down from the house to the first patio,then step further down the hill to_confo m more with the contour lof the land and to lower the - apparent height on the propety in conformance with the recommendations of staff. The recommen ations of the taff were followed. Staff had sent them a report indicating that they had conf rmed to the recommendations that were: made at the site cern that the retaining wall next analysis meeting. At the sam meeting, there was a conto the pool was too high and at the area could be stepped further down the hill. With this concern in mind,ratheran having a one level patio behind the house,they took it down onto two levels with approximately half the area being further down the hill where the actual pool.area is 1 Gated. Mr. Goldberg was asked if he had considered placing the house further up a hill. He responded that there was no flat area up the hill and the grace is actually steeper than in the present location..,It would also require a longer driveway. There wag, also a concern with the heritage oaks in the upper location. The placement of the pool was for convenience and they preferred not to develop the entire top of the (hill. The placement of the pool in the upper area would also require additional expe �e and excavation for a level area. Mr.Goldberg noted that the fourth parking space is adjacent to the east side of the house and inside the setback. CLOSED PUBLIC TESTIMONY Chairman Schreiner's recollection of the site analysis meeting was that they asked the applicant to step down the ho se visually. However,it appears to be a large house on a flat pad. In answer to a uestiin,Mr. Goldberg noted the lack of the landscape plan. q However,it was the landscap architect's recommendation,rather than having high retaining walls,they actually se three relatively low retaining walls,using crib lock covered with plantings. Co 'ssioner Gottlieb was co icerned with the cut and fill. Commissioner Stutz noted th the top of the wall contour'line was mentioned, however no mention of the bo om of the wall elevation. They cannot predetermine the height of the walils. Also,the lans were two different sizes with the architectural drawings being too small. Sh would prefer the plans being the same size. Ms. Kolf noted that the landscape plan snot reviewed at this stage,however the retaining walls were reviewed as part of this pplication which included the height. Glen Cahoon, 1585 The Alame a,San Jose,architect, answered questions regarding the retaining walls up by the entry,commenting that each of9 those walls stair-step down approximately five feet each. Commissioner Stutz was concerned with the safety of • Planning Commission Minutes DRAFT June 14, 1995 Page 3 vehicles exiting the driveway onto the cul-de-sac. The 5% grade as shown off the court in the road right-of-way is the 5%up and the 10%down,then dropping to 14%down to the lower level. Ms.Kolf noted.that according to the engineer's plan,it is not 5%up and then 10% down. They are showing the drainage direction down which would indicate 5% down from the bulb,then increases to 10%. Commissioner Cheng,asked how the original plan differs from this plan. Mr. Cahoon noted that originally the pad grade for the house was 2 feet higher,. There was a 10:12 pitch roof which made the roof line up higher;less stepping of the floor plan; and the house was not dropped into the site. It was noted that the height of the house from the lower pad to the ridge line was 331/2 feet. Commissioner Doran was concerned that the applicant was asked at the site analysis meeting to contour the house to.the hillside,which has a different meaning then stepping the house. Commissioner Stutz noted that they have stepped the house down according to her calculations only 2 feet going across the front of the house. The slope of the land in that location is about 20%. If it was stepped down perhaps 8-10 feet,it would be more approaching what she would like to see on this type of property. Commissioner Gottlieb commented that a step down house does not mean just stepping down inside the house. It means bring the foundation down the hill on the contour. Mr. Cahoon commented that they had addressed this in a couple of way. Originally, when they met with a few of the Commissioners,they asked that they bring the whole profile of the house down. The Goldbergs did not want to have the type of house that you would have a 10 foot space,then go down 3-4 steps,then another 10 foot space,etc. They did not want a marathon house. What they did to resolve this was to bring the house down by cutting a little greater pad, doing some soft retaining walls going up the hill and then they modulated it as much asthey could,stepping throughout the house. The left side of the house which is approximately 80 feet long is being stepped approximately 3 feet from the main entry level down into the master suite. In addition, this is where they have the lower basement. This area of the house is a two story element which is being dropped into the grade. If they were to count the basement, from the basement to the master suite level,there is approximately a 9 foot elevation. From the master level to the entry,there is a 3 foot difference in elevation in that location. In addition,when they did the steps,they pulled the roofs all down with it so the house appears to be going down the hill and around that particular side of the house. Commissioner Gottlieb read excerpt from the ordinance on grading noting that"all cuts s and fill shall be rounded to natural contours. Finished grade shall conform to the natural grade as much as possible and shall not contain sharp angles or other unnatural • features." She felt more could be done to better fit.the lot;the house does not fit the.site. Mr. Cahoon felt they have stepped down the house as much as they felt was reasonable. In addition,they have lowered the whole profile of the house. Mr. Goldberg commented on his mother living with them shortly and the need for flat areas in the house to get around. Commissioner Doran noted because of the steepness of the , Planning Commission Minutes DRAFT r June 14, 1995 Page 4 lot,if the house is stepped more,it will increase grading.1 Mr. Goldberg pointed out that the "flat area"being discussed i7 the oak trees is not a part of his lot. It belongs to their neighbors (Pierce) and this ishere they plan to put their house. Commissioner Stutz likes to s pools placed on the contours. She felt a 20% slope was not pool propert and this may be a lot that cannot support a pool,suggesting a lap pool rather then the lawn area. Chairman Schreiner also had problems with the placement of the pool due to William Cotton's report. Commissioner Stutz felt they were grading a flat area for the house,maybe the pool'should be in that location rather than behind the house. It was greed not to consider the project without the pool. Commissioner Doran felt this as the logical place on the lot for the house suggesting approving the house with a re esign of the back area. Mr.Goldberg noted that the original plan when they met w th some of the Commissioners had only 465 c.y. of cut and fill. Because of some of th changes,ithas increased the cut and fill and the export. He would prefer to minimize thi a cut and fill requesting not to be asked to create further requirements for 'cut and fill. , e'garage and house were placed on the same level for convenience,makng it more li able. - Commissioner Doran was still oncerned with the front retaining walls as mentioned in William Cotton's report. Ms. K if noted that the actual construction of the retaining walls would be reviewed by th project geotechnical consultant and also by William Cotton before the plans went t the building department. The current plans show what conceptually can a done. Wh ther it be keystone walls or something with more substantial footins is not decided at this point. Mr. Cahoon addressed the Cotton report noting that the process i reviewed. In addition,the soils engineer from Terrasearch reviewed a variety of types of retaining walls. They choose to use this earthstone type wall because it is a much softer type of wall and do a series of terracing or stepping the walls so you do not see a 10 foot high wall or a large vertical wall. This would be more natural,staying with the'natural terrain and will be a nice element to landscape up against. Further discussioensued by the Commission. Commissioner Stutz commented on the following:. stucco retaining walls by the swimming pool with a very visible balustrade around the edgef the pool; a dormer on the right side elevation of the garage which adds to the bulk; oo many step coming down the rear south elevation; 15 feet of walls to,lower the house is not desira le;and the house could be 5 feet higher with less grading required. She suggeste a redesign to reduce the cut and fill. Other suggestions included: reduce t e deck area in the back of the house; change the pool to a lap pool,maximum 8 feet wid ;and move the spa up to one of the planter areas so it will not be a prominent spa ata outside edge to follow the contours. She noted the pathway committ e did.not req 're any construction of paths,calling attention to the fact that this lot frints'on Stone rook. They have a 10 foot easement and should have a constructed path,riot necessaril just in its present location. She indicated the proposed location on the plan. They should ask for a continuation of the path at the upper level. Planning Commission Minutes DRAFT June 14, 1995 Page 5 Commissioner Stutz noted that they were getting very laxed regarding steep lots. She quoted from a report dated December, 1983 discussing pools,tennis courts and flat house pads from the grading standpoint;.pools being the greatest problem with regard to abusive grading. Two suggestions from that report were pool sites could not be placed on slopes over 71/2%with the maximum slope of the excavated soil to be less than 15%, and not disturbing more than 2,000 square feet of land for the pool. For the flat house pads,almost all houses coming to site development cut on a flat pad,with little or no effort made to use a step foundation although many of the houses could follow the contour of the hill. The conditions that were discussed at that time (1983): step foundations should be required on all sites having more than a 10%slope with the only grading permitted for the driveway;and hillside grading to create a flat yard should not be permitted. Commissioner Gottlieb was concerned with the pool location; 15 feet of retaining walls being excessive;the slope of the roof should follow the line as indicated on page 4 of the Design Guidelines;and flat lot house on a steep lot. • Commissioner Doran felt that the house was in a logical place on the lot. Two items needing to be addressed were the rear recreation area because it does go against the contours in the rear yard causing cut. She recommended that the siting of the house be approved,not the rear yard and that they look at the front yard to minimize the cut in the front yard and the retaining walls. Raising the house 5 feet would be appropriate. The walk-way should be looked at also. Commissioner Cheng agreed with the suggestion to raise the house to reduce the cut. She felt the back yard needs to be redesigned especially the pool (needs to be on contour). She felt they have already put many steps in their house. When the house is raised, the retaining wall will be reduced. , Chairman Schreiner noted that according to code and the Design Guidelines,on a sloping site,the structure should be stepped down the hill utilizing one story building elements so you get a feeling of the house following the contour of the land. She felt they all agreed that the back yard,the decking,the pool,and the retaining walls need to be redesigned. She also felt a need for some redesign of the house. Mr. Cahoon noted that the original design was higher but what they heard at the site analysis meeting was to bring down the house and the,roof which constituted more grading which did not appear to be an issue. They were agreeable to raising the house up 3-5 feet if they can maintain and hold the same transition and steps within the house. Regarding the pool being redesigned on contours,this can be done although he felt structurally it was placed correctly (bottom of the pool follows contours now),It was noted that in order to have the pool straight up by the back of the house, they will need to remove the deck/lawn area. Mr. Cahoon would like a consensus on raising the house,doing less grading and relocating the pool. The applicant does not want to again start all over. He would not want to stair step-down house. It was understood that when they step Planning Commission Minutes DRAFT ti June 14, 1995 Page 6 the house down,this means that the lower level is bigger and the upper level is smaller. Mr. Goldberg noted that they had been in the process of trying to design the house to conform with both code and the recommendations of the Commission,meeting with staff and Planin4 Commission rs,with recommended information conflicting from one meeting to another. At this point they would be willing to raise the level of the house, trying to redesign the pool are so it conforms more to the contours even though this is in conflict with what structura engineers recommend. They had attempted in the landscape plan to show shrub ery behind the retaining walls to minimize the effect and visibility. They were willing to accept the recommendations on the pathway through the bottom of the property. He does not want to go back and start redesigning the house for the third time. They were willing to work with the Commission. Chairman Schreiner would like somethidone to reduce the bulk in the back area (retaining walls around the pool). There as a concern with the flat pad. Mr. Goldberg disagreed with the comments regarding at pad since the interior is stepped. From the initial meeting with the Commissioners,they added additional(steps,going back toward the master bedroom wing as well s going down to the living room. MOTION SECONDED AND I ED: Motion by Chairman Schreiner, seconded by Commissioner Cheng and fail d by the following vote to approve the house design with the condition to raise the house 3-5 feet,minimize the retaining walls in the front area. Recommended a redesign of le back yard area to return. i. AYES: Commissioners oran and Cheng NOES: Chairman Schreier,Commissioners Gottlieb &Stutz ABSENT: Cornmissioners Fnn&McMahon MOTION SECONDED AND F LED: Motion Chairman Schreiner,seconded by Commissioner Gottlieb and fai ed by the following vote for a redesign of the entire project including the back area AYES: Chairman Schre er&Commissioner Gottlieb NOES: Commissioners S tz,Cheng&Doran 1 ABSENT: Commissioners F'nn&McMahon MOTION SECODED AND P SSED: Motion by Commissioner Doran and seconded by Commissioner)I Stutz to den the site development permit for a new residence and pool without prejudice. AYES: Chairman Schreiner,Commissioners Gottlieb,Cheng,Stutz& Doran NOES: None ABSENT: Colimissioners Finn&McMahon This application can either be a pealed to the City Council or return to the Planning Commission for a redesign. • ' Planning Commission Minutes DRAFT June 14, 1995 Page 7 4.2 LANDS OF CHAWLA,24289 Hillview Road (60-95-ZP-SD); A request for a Site Development Permit fora new residence and a pool. Commissioner Gottlieb stepped down as she is a resident within 300 feet. Staff had nothing further to add to the staff.report. Commissioner Doran noting the portico appearing in the setback,suggested that staff not accept plans that have,structures in the setback then conditioning the removal of same (#7). Pool equipment location to be added to the conditions of approval (11.e ..."to be located outside of the setbacks."). Garage stakes were discussed as well as a letter being received from a neighbor, Elizabeth Mackey. OPENED PUBLIC.HEARING Ron Harris, 10091 Streeter Road,Auburn,architect,,discussed the portico not being in the setback,the garage stakes;using the existing driveway which appears to be dose to neighbors on the right;possibly reducing the area of pavement;the two story area;and the house sitting on a small knoll. Bob Worcester,24221 Hillview Drive,next-door neighbor,requested the garage face the other way so they will not have the driveway coming by their bedrooms. He was also concerned with the height of the building and being at the highest point in the area.. This was'a one-story neighborhood. He liked the overall design.. It was noted that the address had previously been changed. His final comment was that any house would be an improvement over what is there presently. Bob Latta,12440 Hilltop Drive,in back,to the left of applicant's property, also noted that the current house is an eye sore. The current design is great. The only good thing about the existing house is the one story,flat roof so it is down very low. The proposed house will be very tall on a prominent knoll. He was,concerned with the privacy effect on his property;the second story looking down onto his family room and kitchen. This is mitigated somewhat by two large Pine trees on the site. He requested that the Pine trees remain or shielding trees be planted. He further discussed water flowing from the applicant's property onto his property. Lyndell Vandyke, 12410 Hilltop Drive,corner lot below this project,was concerned with the height of the new house;huge privacy issues; and house as placed on the site will block light onto his property. Joanne Vadinsky,24250 Hillview,neighbor across the street,noted concerns were setback requirements being adhered to;the lights in portico;height requirements met; the help of landscaping;pillars and fencing;and lighted skylights. Planning Commission Minutes DRAFT June 14, 1995 Page 8 Carol Gottlieb,24290 Summer 'll,noted her property receives all the drainage from Hilltop. She discussed the dr ' age as shown on the plan which brings all the drainage from the back out to the front,down Hillview which does not have:any drainage ditches;then shooting off to ' ltop and onto her property. BJ Chawla,applicant,discuss d privacy fromboththeir property and theirneighbors and the proposed skylights. CLOSED PUBLIC TESTIMO Discussion ensued. It was not d that the overall height of the portico was between 10-12 feet and the oveilall height of a house will be 27 feet in the center of the house. Chairman Schreiner noted so a concern regarding this very visible knoll and the project towering over the area In the Environmental Design report,they recommended a one story structure to lessen a impact as the proposed design will change the character of the neighborhood The second story windows,privacyy and skylights were discussed. Commissioner McMahon was oncerned with the bulk and mass appearance (steepness of roofs);side elevation okay; roblem with the rear elevation;and 70% of the second floor wall is glass. Commissioner Stutz felt the roof was much higher then need be. It is a lovely house,however it will be very visible (should require one story). She suggested that the house be moved over at least 5 feet to the left so not to impact the neighbor to the right;change the front driveway for safety which would also decrease the amount of paving;and there should not be any encrolachment into setbacks. Commissioner Doran noted that if they have the space to,stay out of the setbacks and you do not have a constricted dot,they should do so. Other concerns were the impact on neighbors;drainage (#13); d bulk and mass. Commissioner Cheng agreed with Commissioner Doran. She dis ussed circular driveway with both openings inside the setback and perpendicular. S was not opposed to a two story as long as the bulk and mass was kept 4wn. Commi sioner Stutz noted that any property that drops off on all four sides from the top is on a oll. Commissioner McMahon asked if the second floor which is only a third of the buiding could occupy the middle third of the first floor instead of the right or left? Coinmissioner Stutz suggested moving the house back to the 30 foot setback line (back a ea). They would not have to worry about the visibility because they wo U ld be at the 1 vel of their neighbors. MOTION SECONDED AND ASSED: Motion by Commissioner Doran and seconded by Commission I McMahon t continue the Site Development Permit for the a new • residence for a redesign to the my 12, 1995 meeting addressing theconcerns and suggesting including'the drive ay design,reducing the number of exterior light fixtures with an example of lig t fixture to be used;reduce the bulk and mass;height; balancing the prdject on the lot and moving the house 5 feet to the left. 1 Planning Commission Minutes DRAFT June 14, 1995 Page 9 AYES: Chairman Schreiner,Commissioners NOES: None ABSENT: Commissioner Finn • Brief break at 9:35 p.m. 4.3 NEXTEL COMMUNICATIONS (Lands of Fenwick),28011 Elena Road (108-94- CUP); A request for Conditional Use Permit for the construction and operation of an unmanned telecommunications transceiving facility. . Chairman Schreiner stepped down from the hearings as she is an adjacent neighbor. The meeting was turned over to Vice-Chair McMahon. The staff had nothing further to add to the staff report. The Planning Director noted he had a conversation with the City Attorney regarding regulating the number of such facilities. The City Attorney advised against limiting the number of companies or number ofsites per company. Through the Conditional Use Permit process, the Planning Commission has the discretion in each case to determine if at any point an application,is excessive in terms of its impact or redundant or unnecessary in terms of adding additional value to the community. Mrs. Davis noted a revised site plan which has been provided to the Commission along with additional information submitted by the applicant. She discussed the changes by the applicant which included a parking space (10'X 20' minimum) off of the existing driveway for the maintenance,person checking on the equipment,etc. so they can park there and walk in. The Fenwicks prefer not having any paved driveway to the equipment site. Commissioner Gottlieb noted that this property was under the Williamson Act asking if this property was limited to what was placed on it. She also asked if there were any conservation easements in this area. Mrs. Davis responded no. At this time,it was not clear if there were any conflicts with the Williamson Act. Staff will review. The number of other facilities in Town was discussed: three utility companies using the Town property near the Town ring; another facility at the water tank site on La Cresta,and one at Foothill College. The issue of a "commercial enterprise" .was discussed previously when Nextel came in originally when they were proposing to use a site on Gerth Lane. The Attorney had researched this question and Council was asked for an interpretation. They determined that Nextel had a right to apply and it was a use that would be under the category of public service. It was staff's opinion that Nextel and other like facilities do not have,the same rights as ham radio operators in that the Commission has the discretion to deny one of these facilities. The Commission may deny a facility if it is not appropriate for a particular site if the Conditional Use Permit findings cannot be made. OPENED PUBLIC HEARING Laura Albright,Nextel Communications,thanked Mrs. Davis for the fine staff report, and they accepted all the conditions of approval. She,requested approval of the site development permit,zoning permit,and conditional use permit for the construction Planning Commission Minut s DRAFT i June 14, 1995 Page 10 and operation of an unmanne communications facility. She discussed the design and location,presenting a display f the site location and examples of above ground vault extension. On June 6th,they installed a mock-up of the antennas on the property. Photographs were provided of the north and south sectors. They propose to paint the antennas a camouflage color (mixture of green and brown).with a sample provided. The Nextel proposed facilityould be a part of Nextel's northern California network which consists o approximat ly 140 facilities with sites ranging from the lower Central Valley to Redding and San Fr ncisco to Tahoe. This facility would provide specialized mobile radio coverage to Los tos Hills and I-280. A sample phone was reviewed noting many features such as: "dispatch" (main feature)where one person can talk to . many people at one time;priv to key on the phone for a Itwo way conversation;a mobile telephony service; dat and fax communications;! alpha numeric paging;and voice mail. Ms. lbright furt er discussed the benefits o'f the service and benefits to the public including no pollution,no environmental impacts,lower cost for cellular service; and safety. The phones provi a emergency communication(911 calls). Dot Schreiner, 1'301 Saddle fountain Drive, adjacent neighbor,will not be impacted by the project and she did not feel the project was a hazard. She questioned whether there was a conservation easement on the property. .Sinee the City Council had made an interpretations she questioned how many types of business would be covered by this type of use. After listening to portioneNextel presentation,she felt that there was a duplication of a of se ices with GTE and Cellular One and there should be a determination,mde if Nextel ill be offering a great deal more. She was concerned with the possible number of o er companies which will apply for a conditional use permit asking if the City Coun it will be giving direction regarding location of these facilities (i.e. all tong I-280 or y the Little League field). CLOSED PUBLIC TESTIMO It was noted that at this time extel was the first company licensed for this type of use in specialized mobile radio. s. Albright felt the proposed antenna would take care of their needs in Los Altos Hills. a original application for the proposed location on Gerth Lane was continued as t e Commission at that time had concerns with locating close to a residence,the mixeduse of the property, the visibility of the facility, and with the 35 foot pole. [The Fenwick roperty is vacant and they will be able to use ground mounted antennas which can be virtually invisible from other areas in town. There was a suggestion to have an arborist present when trenching to protect the Oak trees in the area. Ms. Albright reported that the trench, at most,will be 3 feet deep,the trees will be lined at the dripline to protect hem and there is enough space between the trees to • allow for the cabling. Regarding the Williamson Act,Ms Albright noted that in other jurisdictions, their use was found to be compatible with an architectural use because normally this type of technolo y (dispatch radio)has been used on large ranches for communication. It was noted at a Conditional Use Permit would be reviewed every three years. Planning Commission Minutes DRAFT June 14, 1995 Page 11 There was a concern by the Commission regarding commercial activity. The Council decided that Nextel does provide a public service,and therefore has the right to apply for a Conditional Use Permit. They will be asking for more direction from the City Council as far as whether there should be:a policy in terms of specifically what types of services these facilities would have to provide or at what point does it become duplicative of other facilities. MOTION SECONDED,AMENDED AND PASSED: Motion by Commissioner Doran, seconded by Commissioner Stutz and amended to recommend approval of the Conditional Use Permit,Site Development and Zoning Permits and the findings for construction and operation of an unmanned telecommunications.transceiving facility with the followings changes/amendments to the conditions of approval: #3,landscape deposit will be based on landscape needs,to be determined by staff;arborist shall supervise trenching; and pave parking space. AYES: Vice-Chair McMahon,Commissioners Cheng,Stutz,Doran&Gottlieb NOES: None ABSENT: Commissioner Finn Commissioner Gottlieb's affirmative vote was based only on the City Council's interpretation. This item will appear on the City Council agenda for a public hearing. 5. REPORT FROM THE CITY COUNCIL MEETING 5.1 Planning Commission Representative for the June 7th meeting-Commissioner McMahon reported the following items were discussed: request for extension of the expiration date of a Site Development Permit,Lands of Fatemi;consideration of support for de-annexation of property at 13711 Old Altos Road;brush abatement; Bay Area Communication;tree planting; construction noise by Taaffe Construction;and approval of the public hearing items. 5.2 Planning Commission Representative for the June 21st meeting-Commissioner Gottlieb. 6. NEW BUSINESS Bill Smith from the Technology Committee contacted Chairman Schreiner requesting input from the Commission regarding a Municipal Code data base to make the information more accessible. Planning Commission Minut•s DRAFT , June 14, 1995 Page 12 7. OLD BUSINESS 7.1 Report from subcommittees. 7.2 Discussion-Circular dr veways. ThePlanningDirector reported that the Council has not reviewed circular driveways as yet. They are requesting Planning Commission's recommendations prior to formalizing a:policy. Mr.Williams will provide the Commission with information regarding circular driveways for their next meeting. 7.3 Discussion-Color Boarl. This itemwillappear on the City Council agenda July 21st. Ch irman Schre' er provided a write-up for review. The Commission reviewed the write-uproviding additions and changes. 8. APPROVAL OF MINUTES 8.1 A proval of the une 5, 1995 minutes. MOTION SECONDED AND ASSED BY CONSENSUS: Motion by Chairman Schreiner, seconded by Cossioner McMahon and passed by consensus to approve the June 5th minutes with minor corrections to pages 3 and 10. 9. . REPORT FROM THE SITE DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE MEETING None. , . . 10. ADJOURNMENT The meeting wa adjourned by consensus at 11:10 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Lani Lonberger Planning Secretary I