Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout8.1 9e Minutes of a Regular Meeting DRAFT Town of Los Altos Hills PLANNING COMMISSION Wednesday,July 12, 1995, 7:00 .m. Council Chambers,26379 Fremont Road cc: Cassettes#15-95 (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, Finn&Stutz Staff: Curtis Williams,Planning Director;Sheryl Kolf,Assistant Engineer; Suzanne Davis,Planner;Susan Manca,Planner;Lani Lonberger,Planning Secretary The re-organization of the.Planning Commission was brought forward with Chairman McMahan and Vice-Chair Doran being selected. 2. PRESENTATIONS FROM THE FLOOR None. 3. CONSENT CALENDAR None. 4. PUBLIC HEARINGS 4.1 LANDS OF CHAWLA,24289 Hillview Road (60-95-ZP-SD); A request for a Site Development Permit for a new residence,pool, and cabana (continued from June 14, 1995)., Commissioner Gottlieb stepped down for the hearing due to the proximity of the project to her residence. Letters had been received from three neighbors, Bormann, Gilds, and Van Dyke noting concerns with the proposed two story structure. The applicants and their architect held,a meeting with the neighbors,prior to the Planning Commission meeting, to discussthe changes made to the plans. Planning Com ssion Minute DRAFT • July 12, 1995 Page 2 . OPENED PUBL C HEARING . Ron Harris, 1009[1 Streeter Ro d,Auburn, architect,_discussed the'changes that were made from the previous plan hich included: reduced pavement;increased landscape; reduction of the ulk and mas ;reducing the overall height of the residence by 1 foot; relocating the house towards t e northwest property line to move the driveway further from the southeaist property lie;reduced the number ar d'area of windows along the rear elevation of the house by 0%;reduced the number of skylights by half;included proposed outdoor lighting;re- onfigured the circular driveway to create a safer entrance and egress from the roperty;increased the roof overhangs of the second floor rear wall; and sh wed.the loca 'on of the pool equipment. He commented on the partial two story being the back,gi ing the appearance of a one story from the front. At the meeting with they neighbors, ey discussed the possibilities of a single story residence or a floor under eath,explain g why they have retained the partial second story. Commissioner Schreiner was .ncerned that even_though they have reduced the mass and bulk on one ide of the ho se,they have only accomplished a 1 foot reduction in the overall heightasking if it as possible to bring it down to 24 feet. Mr. Harris responded,if ' was a conce ,they could clip some of the ceilings or rework some of the upstairs area to lower the r dge height to get down to 24 feet. Commissioner Schreiner asked if it was neces ary to have the gazebo ata 17 foot height,if all the driveway pavement was neces.ary on the right side of the house, and if all the proposed lights were necess�ary? Mr. Ha ris felt they could lower thepitch to reduce the height a few feet;they col..ld round out the parking area so it would only be a turn around area; and he had not provided a sa ple of the lights proposed however none are flood lights and all will be d(:i wn shielded. Also,there will not be any lights in the skylights. He noted that the ga es and pool e•uipment will be included in the landscaping plan. Bob Worcester,24221 Hillview Drive,reviewed the new plans noting little change from the previous planks as the proje t is still a two story on a knoll. Code requires that no two story house is built on a oll or a ridge. The present house is a low profile,flat roof house. A single story co d easily be built which would maintain the rural atmosphere. Jan Farnsworth,24220 Hillvie Road,neighbor was concerned with looking up or at an imposing struc le. There are o other two story houses in the neighborhood. The architecture does not fit into tit- neighborhood. She suggested a redesign that would eliminate the tw story ata m', 'mum and a redesign of Lie very imposing covered driveway and portico in the fr.nt of the building. Bonnie Gilds, 12415 Hilltop Dr ve,was concerned with the large, two story home on top of the hill. Other homes in the .rea are one story,nestled into the site. Currently, there are one story,ranch homes in t e area and this home will change the character of the neighborhood. • Planning Commission Minutes DRAFT July 12, 1995 Page 3 CLOSED PUBLIC TESTIMONY Commissioner Finn agreedthat:a 26 foot housewas out of character for the neighborhood. The outdoor lighting should be at a minimum. There is a need for significant landscaping requiring trees. He agreed with Commissioner Schreiner's previous comment regarding the parking area. Commissioner Doran.commented that the previous discussion dealt with a one story element. However,the one story element can be up to 27 feet. If they look at a one story element,they should impose a height limitation on the structure. She also discussed lights on a hillside property. Commissioner Cheng agreed with the comments from both Commissioners. Since the neighborhood is low profile,this house should be a maximum of 23-24 feet in height whether it is a one or a two story. f Commissioner Schreiner commented on diversity in styles encouraged in Town. The. Town will not stay ranch or bungalow style!orever. They need to try to integrate the old with the new with the least amount of impact on the neighbors. She did not agreed that if a two story comes down to 23-24 feet it would be desirable as you still have two sets of windows. The two sets of windows at night are going to produce a great deal of light. She was in favor of one set of windows on a one story house,possibly no more than 22 feet in height on this property. She would like to see some of the lighting reduced, and the pavement in one area reduced. She liked the extension of the eaves. There is a need for significant landscaping and the color of the house is important to make the house blend into the site. She would prefer a reflective value of 50 or less,in earthtone colors. She was in favor of a redesign with these points addressed. • Commissioner Stutz again discussed the additional parking. It was not whether they needed the additional parking but parkingwas not allowed in the setback. There are other areas not in the setback.available. She suggested the six portico lights be reduced to four;the seven additional recess with down lights from the walkway to the front door be reduced to four;the reconfiguration of the circular driveway was not mirrored on the left side as requested;and the entrance to the driveway be moved 10-15 feet so it would be 50 feet from the property line. She did not like to see properties gated. She suggested heavily.staggered trees and shrubs be planted from the 96 to the 100 foot contour line for screening. She also noted that the property line as shown on the plan was incorrect by 5 feet and should be corrected if fencing was planned. Chairman McMahon agreed with the.comments regarding the number of lights . . proposed needed to be reduced. She also commented on the ordinance and guidelines regarding two story structures as they may not be possible on the top of a knoll. This design does not meet the intent of the ordinance. Planning Commission Minutes DRAFT • July 12, 1995 Page 4 Commissioner Doran asked the applicant if they were willing to redesign to a one story home not to exceed 22 feet. Mr. Harris noted that at the last meeting the Commission did not tell him toy reduce the d sign to a one story. He did not feel they could design a 22 or 23 foot two tory house. i ey'would be willing to reduce the two story to 24 feet and remove the portico. Co 'ssioner Stutz would not vote for a two story house in this location. The location is id:al for a flat roof house.. Commissioner Doran suggested a one story house with some cr•ativity to working with the contours of the land that would show a two story eleme t but not from the street. The applicant preferred not to redesign at this time. MOTION SECONDED AND P ' SSED: Motion by Commissioner Doran and seconded. by Commissioner Schreiner to •eny the site development permit for a new residence, pool and cabana without preju.'ce. AYES: Cha' man McM on,Commissioners Cheng,Finn,Stutz,Schreiner& Dorn NOES: : Non 4.2 LANDS OF HWONG, 1 13 Clausen Court(105-95-ZP-SD); A request for a Site Development Permit for = sports court. Staff had nothing further to ad• to the staff report. Commissioner Gottlieb questioned the site plan showy g`the leng of the sports court being 100 feet,however the cross section on the next page shows teat 102 feet. Mr.Williams noted that the calculations were based on 100 feet.`If the p oject is approved as shown,thiswouldneed to be corrected. Discussion ensued r:garding the height of the retaining wall;rounding the slope of the lawn area;the chai link fence on top of the retaining"wall for a total height of 13-14 feet;the Town fence or U'nance;and the fence as shown on the right side of the property. Ms. Kolf noted the o e corner of the fence that is encroaching into the slope easement should be moved to t e line of the slope easement(back to the 318 elevation). This could be added as a condit on of approval. She commented on the use of a slope easement and acc ass by the.To n for specific purposes. OPENED PUBLIC HEARING Larry Hwong, 12813 Clausen C C.urt, applicant, discussed the 3,000 square foot sports court and play area. He discuss-d the retaining wall in the front area being 2-3 feet in height,not 4 feet ii height.' He id not want the lawnarea toocontoured as his children • needed an area to play. In dis ssing the lights,he mentioned the lights were put in for safety beforehebought the hou.e`(condition#6). Mr. Hwong indicated that he had read the letter froT his neighbo s,the Jabbours. CLOSED PUBLIC TESTIMONY Planning Commission Minutes DRAFT July 12, 1995 Page 5 Items discussed included re-contouring within the 10 foot slope easement;the slope easement being. 25feetalong Clausen Court;'staff's concern with the abruptness at the corner between the sports court and the house;the visualappearance of the retaining wall;the lack of story poles for better visual appearance;the appearance of a 20722 foot wall enclosed on three sides from the corner of Clausen Court;a more pleasing appearance beinga`3 foot retaining wall plus the tennis fence up to 10 feet, 10 feet back from the•30 feet=giving more of:a distance for planting of small and larger shrubs,to , mitigate appearance;a step down effect;and the overall visual effect of the subdivision. Commissioner Stutz could vote for the 3,000 square foot sports court but not,for the 15 feet along side at the same elevation. She did not want to see the upper portion of the land graded down to the sports court,suggesting lowering the court by two feet which would also reduce the trellis. There was a consensus to cut off the front wall at the 30 foot section of the sports court rounding back from the end of the chain link fence, keeping its natural slope or terraced up at the lawn area up to the sports court (from house to court). There was a consensus that the project did not have to return;to provide story poles for a visual review. Condition#8 was discussed noting they would not require the applicant to remove the pool for deck as.it was an existing situation when the applicant purchased the:property. Further discussion ensued regarding the remaining conditions of approval. Mr.Williams feltstaff and the applicant could work together regarding the lights. Mr. Hwong noted that he was willing to.conlpromise,however he would like a flat lawn area for his children. MOTION SECONDED AND PASSED: Motion by Commissioner.Doran and seconded by Commissioner Gottlieb to approve the site development permit for a sports court, retaining walls,andassociated grading with revisions to the plan to include: (1) reducing the grade of the sports court by two feet; (2).create a more natural slope for the lawnarea-between the house and the sports court; (3).limit the retainingwall along the Clausen Court frontage such thatit does not extend beyond the edge of the sports court; (4)limit the trellis height to 95 feet; (5) limit the fence height to 8 feet; (6) utilize a retaining wall at the rear of the:sports court to retain the natural,slope at the rear of the lot;and (7)relocate fencing out.of the slope easement; condition#8, certification of the rear area but'not require removal of any structures; and the lighting to be handled at: staff level. . AYES:: ' Chairman McMahon,Commissioners Finn,Stutz,Gottlieb;Cheng,. Schreiner&Doran NOES: None This item will appear.on the City.Council consent calendar August 2, 1995. Planning Commission Minut:s DRAFT July 12, 1995 Page 6 Brief break at 9:10 p.m. 4.3 LANDS OF GARCES, 6101 Elena Road (253-93-ZP-SD); A request for a Site Development Permit f•r a majoraddition/remodel;pool and spa, and pool cover structure. Staff had nothing further to a•d to the staff report.. Staff,has been working with the applicant since 1993 noting m:ny delays. Commissioner Stutz questioned the pool equipment enclosure being c•unted as floor area: Staff will review.and correct,if necessary,as this was include• in the worksheets from the applicant. Commissioner Stutz suggested removal of th- roofing if pool equipment is ever needed to be counted as floor area. It was not kno n if the patio was put in with permits. OPENED PUBLIC HEARING Raymond Miller,225 Frances D rive,Los Altos,architect,commented that the applicant would prefer to paint the add tion the same as the existing color. He clarified condition #13, the last senence "all fill t at was placed on the site without a permit shall be removed and the grades retur edto the natural grades prior to final inspection" commenting that the fill was laced there illegally. They plan taking 10 feet back from the property line reverting it •ack to natural grade,and 'sloping back up: This is something he arid the assista engineer had agreed upon,however it is not reflected in the conditions 4 approval. Is. Kolf felt it would be better to hear all of the discussion first and then return to discus. of condition#13. Lisa Douglas, 12469 Robleda, •roperty backing up to the applicant's property. She discussed problems they hay- experienced with the illegal grading. When they first moved to Los Altos Hills in 1.89,the back property that adjoins their property was gently sloped wth no major •.tios. In the last 5-6 years,they have two major patios, one of which th Garces'plan o locate a swimming pool. Just this year,the Garces have been doing maj r grading,ag.in without permits. The applicant has raised their second level of land ov 6 feet. Allo the dirt they have moved from their property and/or had trucked in o the weeken•s was now higher then their 6 foot high fence. Consequently, the dirt came di wn onto their property,into their'pool, and underneath their house during the winter.torms. There is'also a problem with drainage and sewage from the applicant's 1-ach lines coming onto theme property. Everything the applicant does ' pacts Mrs. i ouglas' property. Now the Town is considering allowing them to develop further. The :pplicants had spent over ayear digging out the lower area of the hous without per its. This is a concern in the event of an earthquake as the property would slide onto the r property . Now they are proposing a soccer field which would be 6 feet above their la d.. The applicant is not correcting any of the illegal situations. She requested that all of the grading on the second patio be removed,the water and the le ch field prob ems be resolved, and she would not want to look up at Planning Commission Minutes DRAFT July 12, 1995 Page 7 any structure which would enclose the applicant's pool._The area which will impact them the most is the secondsetofpatios which runs the whole width of the property. 'l Michael Douglas, 12469 Robleda,reiterated Mrs. Douglas' comments asking that the illegal situations be corrected. He also noted that Mr. Garces moved trees fromthe top patio down which are all dead. He felt he was living next door to a cemetery. Ms. Kolf reported two years ago,the Town was in the process of dealing with the applicants regarding illegal grading situations where Bill Carino had gone out for a "stop work" order. Presently,they do not have a real clear idea of what has been done on this property. She felt theycould benefitfrom the'Douglas'. Being next door,they. would probably have the clearest picture of'the'grading that has been done. The exact areas or the exact volumes of grading that has been done is not known. Commissioner Gottlieb asked,if the pool area has been built up-6 feet,do they have a soils report indicating that the compaction is correct and will hold a pool? Ms. Kolf felt the architect could answer this question.. Tom Griffiths,pathway committee,noted ari error to condition#16..He requested the IIB path remain in the front and restore the nature path in the back between the.two _ chain link fences (between Robleda and La Barranca along I-280),being aware of drainage. CLOSED PUBLIC TESTIMONY Commissioner Doran commented due to the controversy with the neighbors and the lack of information,she would have serious reservations making,any decisions regarding the application for the addition until they have more information. They need:, more..information on what is existing fill,the leach filed, and what are the legal and illegal structures on the property. She suggested the application come backafter more - information is known. Mr. Miller addressed the existing,inadequate leach field,the proposed leach field,amount of cut and fill on site,illegal grading,import,and compaction. Mr. Williams recommended that the applicant have an engineer or geotechnical engineer prepare some information that shows the extent of the fill and cuts and identifies the remedial plan to correct the situation. The Town geologist can then review all the information before proceeding. Commissioner Gottlieb;felt.the Douglas' drainage problems should also be addressed. Mr. Miller discussed some possible drainage designs. • MOTION SECONDED AND PASSED: Motion by Commissioner Doran and seconded by Commissioner Finn to continue the site development permit for a major, addition/remodel,pool and cabana requiring a detailed soils report to be reviewed by William Cotton and Associates,taking borings by the pool to determine the cuts and Planning Commission Minutes DRAFT July 12, 1995 r Page 8 fills and the land to correct it,a emedial plan to correct the situation,review of legal and non-legal structures,possi•ly a more acceptable noise barrier,and-a solution to the _ _ ___ drainage problem) working wit staff, applicant and their neighbor(Douglas). AYES: Chairman McMa on,Commissioners Stutz,Cheng,Gottlieb Schreiner, Doran&Finn NOES: Noe. This application ill be re-notic d for public hearing. 4.4 LANDS O HAMM,:242 2 Elise Court(71-95-ZP-SD-GD); A request for a Site Development Permit for new residence. _ Mr. Williams introduced this it m noting hehad received several calls from Commissioners asl king if_a por ' n of the basement area or all of it should be counted as square footage as ome of the all area is exposed. This is a major issue to be discussed.. Commissioner Cheng comment d on the location of the encroachment being moved around which wash not familiar o her. Mr.Williams noted that it was not expressly prohibited. The Zoning Ordina ce,Section 10-1.401_was discussed noting that there was a sub-commitee reviewing this subject presently. He would not want to trap the a licant in a nononformin is ue when there is a process goingon reviewingthis PP g P whole subject. Commissioner Doran noted eve though the staff has po ted out all the similar projects which hayys e been appro ed,there were an equal number of houses that never had the opportunity of this info 'nation that were not approved with nonconforming situations. . In reviewing the site analysis m-eting,on'May 23, 1995,Commissioner Doran reported there had been a split decision •f the Commissioners present (McMahon,Schreiner and Doran) with Dora and Schrein.•r feeling if it was a level playing field,you had to conform. Chairm n McMahon elt the applicant could move the nonconformity to another spot. The main topic at that meeting was the nonconformity. Commissioner Schreiner recollection of the me ting was their concern with the applicant moving the driveway;not un4erstanding w y.. When it was made clear.that thepercolation for the leach fields and one area was no adequate;they were the n satisfied with the answer. . . The garage was not in the same ocation as presented currently and they were not aware . that the basemen was daylight-d. OPENED PUBLI HEARING Stephen Arnn,32 Hill Street,S,n Francisco,architect,provided renderings of the house. Items discussed were th:• front area incorporating the changes to the driveway; keeping the profile low;only one flat area'on the property'which does not have a view; Planning Commission Minutes . DRAFT July 12, 1995 Page 9 the narrow property; and the lack of space in the front area because of the leach field. This addresses the reason for thedriveway going as far as it does as he would not want the Hamms to pave more ground then needed,if it was not necessary. They could not put the garage underneath the master bedroom and then have the.Hamms carting groceries to the other end of the house. He further discussed the back area rendering showing the existing trees with the exception of the 14 inch oak next to the dining room. He indicated one of the trees whichwas not in good health and could not be used for screening. He would leave it,planting trees around it to provide screening of-the . carport from off-site,if needed. Mr. Arnn commented that early in the project,trying to keep within the guidelines of the Town,understanding that the basement needs tobe wholly underground with the ceiling wholly under the'existing grade. Onthe front side,he has provided a stairway down to a UBC required exit. The planter in front of the basement doors is an attempt to hide the doorway from off-site since this,is.a . - requirement not to see the egress from off ste. He is only trying to get down to the doors of the basement. This is only a code entrance. The Commission responded that they would like the finished grade around the stairs to-be.higher then the ceiling of that space (internal stair). The Town wants anything related to the basement to be underground, dirt, above.the.ceiling of anything in the basement.. Mr. Arnn further discussed the encroachment issue..The preliminary sketch was discussed with staff. The reason that the corner of the living room infringes in the space between the 30 foot setbacks was discussed. The existing house encroaches 247 feet and the development area 2,000 feet for a total of a little over 2,200. The new encroachment ofthe house would be 60.5 feet and development area 69 feet for a total of 169•feet. He would have a verydifficult time twisting the house to get it out of the encroachment. Mrs. Davis noted when they met with the applicants a year ago,,the encroachment was not an issue. When she and Linda Niles met with the previous architect,he was given.. the direction that as long as he did not increase the degree of nonconformity,he could keep the nonconforming situation. The code does notspecify what you can do with the nonconformity as long as you do not increase how close they.go,to the setback,or increase the square footage. The policy appears to be inconsistent. It was noted that the architect has decreased the nonconformity substantially;:50%floor area.and 90%of development in an area where they:only have a 27 foot width for the building area. Mr. Arnn provided colors samples (natural)for_the house which will be in conformance with the Town color.board: The driveway and'entrance into thegaragewere discussed. Originally the carport was entered from the left hand side;the driveway followed the 10 foot line all theway around. The concern at that time was for the 30 inch oak and a 19 • inch oak because of the substantial cut. He tried another approach to the carport to get an adequate and comfortable turn-around and hide it more from the,next door neighbors. The arborist was not concernediwith this design. Commissioner Schreiner noted there was quitea bit of the motor court in the 30 foot setback. Mr. Arnn commented it was a driveway turnaround which is allowed and needed per the Planning Commission Minute DRAFT. July 12, 1995 Page 10 engineering department. Co missioner_Gottlieb felt the garage area is this location would be viewed from off-site Usually they ask that driveways and garagesbeturned to the side so people viewing t e house from the street will not see the garage area. Commissioner Doran noted th:t the architect has turned fit around as requested in the site analysis meeting. Guy Jinkerson,Environmental Design Committee,was concerned with the change:in , the driveway which involves e removal of shrubbery,thelong driveway, and visibility. This interferes with e natural vegetation. CLOSED PUBLIC TESTIMO ..• Commissioner D ran felt this as one of the best designs she has seen in the hills. She was opposed to a nonconfor ance issue however the applicant was caught in something that the Town is c rently reviewing. She understands that the applicant is willing to look a making the b.sement a wholly undergriound.entity._If this is the case she would be in greement wi ih the rest of the project. Commissioner Stutz agreed. They have done a beautiful jo. designing the house. She did notfeel they had anything - to say regardinghe driveway hange as it is required in order to get in a drainfield. Commissioner Fillnn was impr- sive that they have actually reduced the development area. Great design. Commissi.ner Schreiner commented on the driveway and the staff report. Staffs concern was tha a portion of the backup area is on a 30%:slope which is a serious consideration. She dots not like to see any part of a driveway or an area where cars will be parkd on this typ. of slope. She requested some type of redesign of that area or reductio. in that partic lar area as she feels this is unsafe...Regarding the. - basement, all the are asking i• to comply to the code. Sle liked the design. She would like them•to confnilhowever,they have gone this far with the understanding that they could keep some of the nonco ormity. She would not like this to set a precedent. Commissioner G ttlieb agreed it was a very nice house although she didnot feel a carport facing the Preserve are; was correct The carport is not in the right area with so much of the driveway in a 30% slope area. She would prefer not having the nonconformityanl d would not ike to see any more in the future. Commissioner Cheng agreed with most of the Co 'ssioners regarding the encroachment being less. She had no problemith the drive ay-due to.the`constraints of the lot. She does want the basement changed to a true ba.ement. Chairman McMahon felt it was a remarkable design;followin the Design e'uidelines;not imposing.. She was happy to see that . instead of using a"entire encr.achment,they only used a modest.60 square feet. . I Mr.Williams felt comfortable t at staff could work with the architect regarding the - basement. Ifthe a were any of et projectsstaffwas working with'that-would fall into this nonconformance issue,Co missioner Doran asked that they be advised. The conditions o approval we r e discussed. Mr. Williams noted the need to add a condition with the standard language accepting the conservation easement as shown on Planning Commission Minutes DRAFT July 12, 1995 Page 11 the plan. He also suggested a condition having an arborist prepare a report making recommendations for the construction in the area of the oak trees and any other measures to help protect those trees;one in the parking area and one 10 feet off of the parking area. Commissioner Stutz suggested if the trees are really in poor condition, have them removed before construction. Mr Arnn commented on two arborists reports which suggest the removal of the two Blue Oaks,replacing them with Red Oaks. It was felt a third report was not necessary. MOTION SECONDED AND PASSED: Motion by Commissioner Finn and seconded by Commissioner Doran to approve the site development permit for a new residence adding to the conditions of approval accepting the conservation easement below the driveway at the carport;staff working with the applicant to change the access to the basement so it is in conformance to code. AYES: Chairman McMahon,Commissioners Stutz,Cheng,Finn&Doran NOES: Commissioners Gottlieb &Schreiner Commissioners Gottlieb &Schreiner indicated their NO vote was due to the location of the carport and the driveway. This item will appear on the City Council consent calendar August 2, 1995. There was a consensus to continue the meeting past 11:00 p.m. 5. REPORT FROM THE CITY COUNCIL MEETING 5.1 Planning Commission Representative for the July 5th meeting-Commissioner Cheng reported the following items were discussed: re-appointment of Commissioners Cheng and Finn and a discussion regarding.cutand fill as it related to the Lands of Goldberg. 5.2 Planning Commission Representative for the July 19th meeting-Commissioner Doran. 6. NEW BUSINESS 6.1 Re-organization of the Planning Commission. The Commission thanked former Chairman Schreiner for all her hard work over the past year. 6.2 Revised Conditions of Approval regarding landscape, colors,required certifications, and lighting. The change in language was discussed along with a landscaping bond ordinance suggested. All agreed with the new language as presented. Planning Commission Minute. .. DRAFT. July 12, 1995 Page 12 6.3 Joint City Council/Pla g Commission meeting 9/14/95 at 5:00 p.m. The meeting s been canceled and will be re-scheduled for some time in the future. 7.1 - Report frim,subcommi ees Dan Anderson is currently working on the Housing Element with all of the omments from the other committee members. 7.2 Discussiofi-Circular dri eways. A report was presented by the Planning Director. 111. felt the re.ort was very thorough. MOTION SECONDED AND ASSED BY CONSENSUS: Motion by Commissioner Gottlieb,seconded by Commi•sioner Cheng and passed py consensus to forward the report to the Cit Council recol mending approval of this policy. 8. APPROV L OF ES 8.1. Ap royal of the une 28, 1995 minutes. PASSED BY CONSENSUS: T. approve the June 28th minutes with a change to page 7, fourth paragrapr. "not being f.11owed." 9. REPORT FROM THE S I DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE MEETING 9.1 LANDS 0 PETERS,24112 Oak Knoll Circle; A request for a Site Development Permit for a landscape ',Ian.'Approved with:conditions. 10. AD e ENT The meeting was adjourned b consensus at 11:35 p.m. Respectfully subfitted, Lani Lonberger Planning Secretary