Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout04-27-1977 Planning Commission Minutes CITY OF SARATOGA PIA~ING CO~NISSION MIXrLrrES DATE: Wednesday, April 27, 1977 - 7:30 p.m. PLACE: City Council Chambers, 13777 Fruitvale Avenue, Saratoga, California TYPE: Regular Meeting I. ROUTIN]E ORG~YIZ'~TION A. ROLL C~LL Present: Commissioners Belanger, Callon, Laden, Lustig, Marshall, Williams & Zambetti Absent: None B. MINIlFES The minutes of the April 13, 1977 Commission meeting were not prepared. I I. CONSE.VF C~L~])AR A. C.omposition of Consent Calendar It was requested by Staff that application A-576 _(Los Gatos Associates, Carnelian Glen, Final Design Review Approval for 1 Lot) be'taken off of.. the Consent Calendar and con- tinued. Chairman Belai~..ger directed that application A-576 be continued to the Planning Commission meeting of May 11, 1977 pending further ~eview. B. Items of Consent Calendar Commissioner Lustig moved, seconded by Commissioner Marshall, that the Planning Commis- sion grant Final Design Review Approval to application A-551 (Henry. Fallek, Pike Road, 1 Lot) per Exhibit "A" and the Staff Report dated April 21, 1977. The motion was carried unanimously. I I I. TENTATII~ SUBDIVISIONS A. SD-1296 - Gerald Butler, Montalvo Road, Tentative Subdivision Approval - 7 Lots; Con- tinued from April 13, 1977 Note was made that 2 reports had been prepared on this matter: a Staff Report dated April 21, 1977 providing the necessary conditions by ~ich Exhibit "A-2," reflecting a cul-de-sac circulation pattern, could be approved; and a Staff Memorand~n dated April 21, 1977 outlining problems associated with the proposed circulation system represented on Exhibit "A-2", alohg with specific recommendations for alternative solutions. Staff recommended in its memorandum that this application be denied without prejudice in order to allow-~ the applicant.; the opportunity to submit revised plans re- flecting an alternate circulation plan which would more effectively allow development of the adjacent Young property. Denial ~ithout prejudice, it was explained, would allow the applicant to submit revised plans within a year~ time without additional filing fees. It was Staff's opinion that after a thorough review of this application with regard to development of adjacent properties, extension of Lira Drive to the westerly boundary of the site would be essential in order to provide eventual public access to the Young property which would otherwise not have such access. Don Beardsley, representative of the 18-acre Young property, urged the Commission to accept the proposed plan providing for a cul-de-sac with an emergency connection through the San Jose Water Works site. He requested the Commission to give him indi- cation, if this plan was approved, as to whether a maintenance district for Vickery Avenue could be pursued with regards to development of th'e Young property. He stated that in his opinion development of the existing right-of-way to Lomita should be pur- sued to allow for development of a "full subdivision street" with a maintenance dis- trict fomed for the potential 11-12 lot development of the Young property. It was ex]Dlained that the Commission did not have the authority, to take action on such a request. -1- CO~.~ISSION MINIFFES OF !7, 1977 III. A. SD-1296 - Gerald Butler - Cont'd After additional discussion of the circulation problems, Commissioner ~rshall moved, seconded by Commissioner Lustig, that the Planning Commission deny SD-1296 without prejudice per the findings made in the Staff Memorandum dated April 21, 1977. The motion was carried; Commissioners Callon and Zambetti voted no because they wished this matter to be continued pending receipt of a letter granting an extension to a sub- sequent Commission meeting. Staff was directed to agendize the issue of the area circulation pattern for a future Committee-of-the-~ole meeting, and to so notify the applicant and~\-I~r. Beardsley. B. SD-1302 - Clayton Thomas, Allendale Avenue/Chester Avenue, Tentative Subdivision Approval - 5 Lots; Continued fromApril 13,'1977 Staff requested this matter be continued pending review of Santa Clara Valley Water District comments. Chairman Belanger directed that SD-1302 be continued to the Plan- nin~ Commission meeting of ~y 11, 1977. IV. PUBLIC H~*~RINGS A. V-464 - John and ~-~ry Della Monica, 20590 ~:~nor Drive, Request for Variance to Allow for Reduction of Required Sideyard Setback for Corner Lot (Streetside) from 25 Feet to 14 Feet for Accommodation of Existing Shed (Ord. NS-3, Sec. 3.7) Note was made that a Staff Report had been prepared recommending denial on the basis '~ that the necessary findings for approval of a variance have not been made. It was ...... explained that per a complaint received by the Code Enforcement Officer regarding the existing structure, it was discovered that the shed had been placed within setbackS illegally, and consequently, a variance was required. Staff pointed out that a peti- tion had been submitted containing signatures of 23 neighboring property m~ers stating no opposition to this variance. Chairm~n Belanger opened the public hearing on V-464 at 8:15 p.m. ® The applicant's son explained that due to a misunderstanding regarding setback requirements, this shed had been constructed 3 years ago within the sideyard setbacks. It was .pointed out that a building permit had not been requested bX applicant at the time of shed construction. ® Sally Truax, 12401 Greenmeadow Lane, stated that she could ~ardly see the shed because of existing trees. She pointed out that although the shed was illegal, "it isn't bothering anyone and it has been up there for 3 years." She urged approval of the variance. · Fred Tater, resident across the street from the applicant, stated that he felt the structure blended well with the rest of the neighborhood, and he urged approval of the variance° As there were no additional comments, Comissioner Marshall moved~ seconded by Commissioner Lustig, that the public hea~ing on V-464 be closed. The motion was carried unanimously, and the public hearing was closed at 8:23 p.m. Commissioners ~rshall and Zambetti expressed the opinion that granting this variance would constitute a special privilege. Commissioner Marshall noted that findings neces- sary for the granting of a variance had not been made, and he pointed out that the present situation was a result of choosing to erect a structure illegally. Commissioner Callon expressed the opinion that ordinances were ~itten to protect homeo~ers' rights. She stated that since there was nothing on record against the granting of this variance, she would vote in favor of V-464. Commissioner Williams agreed, pointing out that since the shed had been existing for 3 years, there had been ample time for complaints to have been issued prior to this time. Commissioner ~rshall moved, seconded by Commissioner Zambetti, that the Planning Com- mission deny application V=464 per the Staff Report dated April 21, 1977..The motion failed; Commissioners Belanger, Callon, Lustig and Williams voted no. ~. --.- ~(I~NISSION MINIFFES OF APR: , 1977 --- IV. A. V-464 - John and ~-~ry Della Monica - Cont'd Chairman Belanger moved, seconded by Commissioner Callon, that application V-464 be approved as substantiated by the interpretation that the findings enumerated in Zoning Ordinance NS-3, Section 17.6 had been made. The motion was carried; Commissioners Marshall and Zambetti voted no; Commissioner Laden abstained. (NOTE: The second motion ~vas made after discussion of application V-465 regarding variance findings. ) B. V-465 - ~:alter and Barbara Gruber, 19798 Merribrook Drive, Request for Variance to AllO~T a 17-Foot Rearyard Setback in Lieu of the Required 25-Foot Setback for an Addition to the Residence Located at 19798 Merribrook Drive (Ordinance NS-3, Section 3.7,-1) Note was made that a Staff Report had been prepared recommending denial on the basis that the necessary findings for approval of a variance had not been made. Introduced into the record was a letter dated April 26, 1977 from Beatrice and Wallace Schmidt, 19794 Merribrook Drive, favoring approval of this variance. Chairman Belanger opened the phblic hearing on V-465 at 8:45 p.m. · Mrs. Gruber, applicant, outlined several alternatives investigated for this proposed solarium which they found to be unacceptable: (1) the offer to purchase a small strip of property from the Schmidts ~vho o~uued the lots to the side and rear of the subject site had been-turned dm~u~; (2) th_e)~ felt that exp_ansion o.f_l.8" to the_r-ear--~ 'l'i'ght'a~d v~ew ~f"trees and ~'~O'dl'd't~ke a~ay f~fhe openness ~f'~h~'house; ~d'('S)' adding a second story would involve rearranging the entire house which they felt would be too expensive. She contended that this request for a variance was their last resort ~=~.-!r._S=..: Gruber explained that their house was the smallest and least valuable on Merri- Brook Drive, noting that most of her neighbors had made additions and improvements to their homes, and she stated that they wished to also upgrade their home in order to increase its value. She also noted that the remnant parcel to the rear of their site which was m~uqed by the Schmidts had no street access, and she referenced the Schmidt's letter stating no objection to this application. (NOTE: It ~:as pointed out that this remnant parcel could only be developed with an accessory structure, although it was noted that the Schmidts already had a swimmin~ pool and a ~¢uest house .on-site.) ® ~ir. Vanderlaan, 19802 Merribrook Drive, favored approval of the variance. He stated that he felt the improv~ements proposed ~:ould enhance the value of the Gruber home, and ~Duld bring it "up}to the same level as the surroundin~ houses." As there were no '~h~'~ comments,-Commissioner Lustig moved, seconded by Commissioner Zambetti, that the public hearing on V-46S be closed. The motion was carried unanimously, and the public hearin~ was closed at 8:4S p.m. The foilroving comments ~vere made by the Commissioners: ® Commissioner Willisms noted that there was room for expansion in the area behind the garage in a space approximately 10' x 1S' He urged investigation of this alternative. · Commissioner ,~hrshall felt that granting approval of this variance would be privilege, and he voiced objection to this application on the basis that the appro- priate findings for granting a variance could not be made. · Chairman Belanger stated that she felt this was an unusual sitaution in that the remnant parcel to the rear of this site had no access and could not be developed. She stated: "Given all of the practical considerations of the possibilit~ of ex- pansion, it seems the one that the applicants propose is the most efficient one and the least impactful." -~. -~- IV. B. V-465 - Walter and Barbara Gruber - C0nt'd · Commissioner Callon agreed with Chairman Belanger, adding that she felt ordinances were based on protecting homes and homemakers. She expressed the opinion that granting this variance would not violate this philosophy, and she favored approval of V-465. · Commissioner Zambetti also favored approval of this application in that the remnant parcel o~ed by the Schmidts could not be developed. Comnissioner Callon moved, seconded by Commissioner Zambetti, that application V-465 be approved as substantiated by the interpretation that the findings enumerated in Zoning Ordinance NS-3, Section 17.6 had been made. The motion was carried; Commis- sioners Marshall and Laden voted no. BREAK: 9:00 - 9:20 p.m. C. UP-333 - Campbell Union School District, 3225 Union Avenue, San Jose, Request for Use Permit to Allow the Temporary Use of a Portion of the Campbell Union School District's 32-Acre Site Located at the Intersection of Prospect Road and Lm~ence Expresm~ay (Prospect High School) for a Carnival from October 14th thru October 16th, 1977 (Ord. No. 4A, Article 1, Section 4.2) Although Staff requested this matter be continued to a subsequent meeting pending further review, Chairman Belanger opened the public hearing on UP-333 at 9:24 p.m. As there were no comments, Chairman Belanger closed the public hearing on UP-333 at 9:25 .p.=.m., and continued same to the Planning Commission meeting of May 11, 1977. D. UP-334 - John and Sandy Klein, 3 Coilado Court, Atherton, Request for Use Permit to Allow for the Construction of a 10-Foot High Tennis Court Fence Within the Required Rearyard Setback Located at Lot #2, Tract #5250 on Toa~ Drive (Ordinance NS-3, Section 3.7-1) Note was made that a Staff Report had been prepared recommending denial. It was ex- plained that this site was located in a "planned comity" zone which carried with it a restriction for a fencing limitation of 15%. It was pointed out that a petition con- taining 21 signatures of neighboring residents had been submitted with the application stating no objection to this request. It was further noted, however, that a subsequent petition had been submitted signed by 12~fd~f~ reqde'~fing' that their names be withdrm~ from the original petition. Submitted with this subsequent petition was a cover letter signed by Mrs. Norma Norton and Mrs. Gra~e Clover, as well as a petition urging denial of this request signed by Mr. Bob Norton (19752 MinocqMa Court), Mrs. Grace Clover (19759 Douglass Lane), W.H. Blaseck (19700 Minocqua Court), and Cornell .~piro (19753 Minocqua Court). -A petition containin the sigp_atures of 3 other property o{~ner~'~Fging denial of this use permit was also sun~mittedwith this cover letter. Chairm...an ~el~nger opened *~ ~,ab~c hearing on ~m-xx~ at ~:~5 ~.m. · John Klein, applicant, contended that the 15% restriction had not been exceeded with his fencing proposal, explaining that subtraction of a SO-foot portion of the pro- posed fence which was only 3-feet high reduced the amount of fencing to under the allot~a requirement. It was explained that the 3-foot high fence could not be omitted from the calculations insomuch as it was a fence; consequently, the proposed fencing exceeded the 15% limit. Discussion followed on the 15% restriction, with the City Attorney explaining that such a restriction was not enforceable under the tract's CC&Rs by the City insomuch : as the provision was between the developer and the homemakers. Commissioner~ Callon · urged, however, that the Commission uphold this 15% fencing restriction insomuch as this condition was imposed upon the subdivision by the Commission at the time of tentative approval. · J~dith Butler, owner of the adjacent lot, urged approval of the requested use permit. · Bob Norton, 19YS3 Minocqua Court, opposed approval of this use permit. He cited Questions #22, 23, 26 and 27 of the application's Environmental Assessment Ques- _.=.. tionnaire as part of the basis for his objections. He argued that a 10-foot high. -4- CO~-IISSION MINlrrES OF APR~7, 1977 IV. D. UP-334 - John and Sandy Klein - Cont'd fence would obstruct the scenic views of his home, as well as the homes of the Clovers, BlaseckS and Spiros. He noted that the proposed facility would be 58 feet from his patio, closer to his lot than if it was located across the street, and clgs~ to his home than to the applidant's home. He contended that the requested fence would destroy the open space of the planned comity character, and he objected to the amount of noise that might be generated from this activity. Mr. Norton also con- tended.that the 6800 square foot court would cause storm drainage problems in the area. In closing, he presented a slide showing that 70% of the neighbors within a 500-foot radius of this site opposed this use permit request. ® Cornell Spiro, 19753 Minocqua Court, confirmed Mr. Norton's contention that the pro- posed fence would destroy his scenic view. Additionally, he pointed out that the area was presently open and quiet, and he expressed the opinion that the noise generated from this activity would "significantly destroy the quietness of the neighborhood." He also stated that he felt this tennis court structure would "possibly reduce the value of our property." ® Mrs. Norma Norton, 19753 Minocqua Court, pointed out that it was her understanding that Mr. andMrs. Butler were building their home on Lot #1 as a spec house to be sold. She also expressed the opinion that the other lots within this tract were not sold as yet. ® Juanita Trapenese, real estate agent for the applicant, noted that all lots within such tract had been sold, and she pointed out that there were no objections from these property owners to the requested tennis court facility. ® Mr. Klein contended that the proposed tennis court fence would not block out any scenic views; that tennis was not a loud sport, but rather, was less noisy than a swimming pool facility; that other properties within this area had violated the'~15% fencing requirement; and that the contended water drainage problem was "greatly exaggerated." (NOTE: Mr. Trinidad of the Public Works Department stated that the drainage'_generated from a high intensity storm in this area would not normally be -considered a storm drainage problem.) In response to a question raised relative to changing the location of the tennis court, ~'~. Klein explained that the ideal direc- tion for a tennis court was in the proposed direction because of the sun. At this time Chairman Belanger moved seconded by Commissioner Lustig that the public' hearing on UP-334 be closed. The motion was carried unanimously, hearing was closed at 10:05 p.m. Commissioner Marshall moved, seconded by Commissioner Zambetti, that application UP-334 be denied per the Staff Report dated April 21, 1977. The motion was carried unanimously Chairman Belanger advised the applicant that he could appeal this decision before the City Council within 10 days of this action. E. GP-77.2 - City of Saratoga, As Required of the 1974 General Plan Amendment of Circula- tion Element by: (1) Adoption of a Revised ~'~ster Trails and Paths Plan as per Objective #2 of the Circulation Element: Trails, Pathways and Bicycles, 1974 General Plan; and (2) Adoption of a Northwest Saratoga Circulation Plan as per O~jective'#5 of the Circulation Element: Vehicular, 1974 General Plan Chairman Belanger opened the public hearing on GP-77.2 at 10:23 p.m. Introduced into the record was a letter dated April 24, 1977 from Russell Crowhter, 20788 Norada Court, expressing the opinion that the Plan:would have growth-inducing impacts and-would sub- ject the public to hazards. In response to this letter, the Secretary stated tha~ he felt the City visions of the State law with respect to impact analysis and report criteria. He ex- plained that Staff had completed an initial study analysis in conformance ~ith CEQA guidelines (available to the public), which took'into aonsideration the general impacts of the proposed study. Further, he pointed out that any additional environmental impacts associated with circulation routes of all'development~ithin this area would be considered on a site-specific basis; i.e., a separate environmental analysis would be evaluated for each building site or subdivision application filed within this area. ~ ~ -C~O~-[ilSSION MINIFFES OF AP 27, 1977 IV. E. GP-77.2 - City of Saratoga - Cont'd As there were no public comments made, Commissioner Zambetti moved, seconded by Commissioner Lustig, that the public hearing on GP-77.2. The motion was carried unanimously, and the public hearing was closed at 10:24 p.m. Commissioner ~-[~rshall moved, seconded by Commissioner Zambetti, that the Staff Report dated April 21, 1977 be adopted in the matter of GP-??. 2 and that same be fon~rarded to the City Council with the recommendation for approval. The motion was carried unanimously. Staff ~:as requested to fon~ard a copy of the mihutes of this meeting to Mr. Cro~her when prepared and approved. V. DESIGN REVIEW A. A-SS?b - Dividend Industries, Saratoga-Sunnyvale Road and Cox Avenue, Final Design Review Approval - 4S Single-Family Residences Note was made that the Committee-of-the-l~ole reviewed this application at its meeting of April 19, 1977, and that a Staff' Report had been prepared recommending approval. It was pointed out that the concerns expressed at this meeting by the Commissioners had been resolved. Commissioner Lustig moved, seconded by Commissioner Laden, that the Planning Commission grant final design review approval to application A-SSTb per Exhibits "A", "B" and "C" and the Staff Report dated .April 22, 1977. The motion was carried unanimously. B. A-566 - Daniel Antovich, Sperry Lane, Final Design Review Approval - 1 Lot; Continued from April 13, 1977 Note was made that revised plans had been submitted modifying the amount of cut and fill on this site to no more than 6 feet, or approximately 600 cubic feet, excluding the swimming pool facility. Mr. Peepari, applicant ' s architect, pointed out that a note had been put on the contour map assuring that the maximum cut and fill would be no more than 6 feet. Discussion follm~ed on this matter. Commissioner Lustig pointed out that this was a flatland-designed ho,use on a hillside lot with a 27% grade. He stated that he would not/vote in favor of this design because of this reason. Commissioners Belanger and Marshall agreed with the disapproval of a flatland house on a hillside lot, but they both ex]oressed the opinion that because of the lack of adequate grading provisions, the City had no way of enfording more stringent grading fcriteria on this Sit_e than was presently proposed. Commissioner Laden moved, seconded by Commissioner Williams, that the Planning Commis- sion grant final design review approval to application A-566 per Exhibits "A-2" and "B", ~rnd p~hYS~f~'R~ppo~'Fda'~d'A~]il 13, 1977, as amended. The motion was carried; Commissioners Callon and 'L_-~St_~_._Z voted no. C. A-572 - M.C. Johnson, Taos Drive, Final Design Review Approval - 1 Lot Note was made that this lot was being purchased by Mr. John Klein (application UP-334). It was pointed out that Condition "S" of the tentative map of this tract called for design review approval of the total site, including house siting, landscaping fencing and other appurtenant structures. The desire ~:as expressed by several of the Commissioners that this matter should be continued, and that landscaping, fencing and appurtenant structures should be included on the design review plans. Commissioner Callon disagreed, p~inting out that approval could be given to the present plans with a stipulation that additional design review would be r-equired On the other matters. Commissioner Callon moved, seconded by Commissioner.--.Williams, that the Planning Commis- sion grant final design review approval to application A-S72 for the house siting plan (Exhibit "A") and per the Staff Report dated .April 21, 1977,~ Subject to design review approval of an additional plan reflecting landscaping, fencing and appurtenant structures. The motion failed; Commissioners Belanger, -~de~,L~tl~'F'~Yshall and Zambetti ~,~ted no. -6- _ CO~'RSSION MINIFFES OF APRIl ~ "~,,"'F''~- ._ V. C,': A-572 - M.C. Johnson - Cont'd Commissioner Lustig moved, seconded by Commissioner Zambetti, that the Planning Commis- sion continue application A-572 to the Commission meeting of ~;[~y 11, 1977 with the re- quest that a site development plan be submitted reflecting the house siting, landscap- ing, fencing and appurtenant structures. The motion was carried; Commissioners Callon and Williams voted no. VI. MI SCELLAN~OUS A. Request by George Day Construction Company for Issuance of Building Permit for Lot #11 of Tract #4007 (Located within Bohlman Road Slide Stud}, .Area); Continued from April 13, 1977 At the request of the applicant, Chairman Belanger directed that this matter be con- tinued to the Planning Commission meeting of ~y 25, 1977. B. SDR-1208 David Ritter, Bohlman Road - 1 Lot~ Request for 1-Year Extension of'Tenta-': '~~iTd'ih~'gSl~'Approval"'(Located within Bohlman Road Slide Study A~ea) After clarification of the Bohlman Road Slide Stud}, Area map for the applicant, Com- missioner ~rshall moved, seconded by Commissioner Lustig,. that the Planning Commission grant a one-year extension of application SDR-1208. The motion was carried unanimously. C. V-453 - Michael Holden, Old Oak ]~:ay, Request for 1-Year Extension of Frontyard Setback Variance G.r. anted ~,v 17, 1976 Commissioner ~rshall moved, seconded by Commissioner Lustig, that the Planning Commis- sion grant a one-year extension to application V-453. The motion was carried unafiimous lv. D. UP-279 - Allen DeGrange, Request for Modification of Site Development Plan for 20- Unit Senior Citizen Housing Proj.ect Located on Cox Avenue Chairman Belanger expressed opposition to the modifications proposed in this amend- ment, stating that she was concerned about the substitution of wood siding for stucco --and-_the___e!iminati=q=n.=.9.f covere_d_. C_a._.rpQ_rt_s... _S=h_e. cQ_n_t..e___nded._that these amendments would dm~grade the project, and she argued that this was a mistake in light of lack of acceptance for HUD projects which Saratogans have expressed in the past. She added that if this ;.project wa's not aesthetically pleasing and acceptable to the community, it could j eapordize the~ future of other subsidized heusing for the elderly. Commissioner ~rshall and Staff explained that restrictions had been placed on the application via HUD requirements, and the amount of costs relative to City permits and inspection fees had been understated in the original application for federal fund- ing. It was pointed out that the proposed amendments would provide a cost savings of roughly $22,000. Reference was made to the Staff Report prepared on this matter recommending approval, and note was made that the Subdivision Committee had reviewed this item. Commissioner Marshall moved, seconded by Commissioner Lustig, that the Planning Commis- sion approve Changes #1, 2 and 3 as itemized in the Staff Report dated .April 15, 1977 relative to applications UP-279 and A-510, and that recommendation be made to the City Council that the Parks & Recreation fees be waived. The motion was carried; Commis- sioners Belanger and Zambetti ~:oted no. VII. CO~JNICATIONS A. ~tITTF.,N 1. Memorandum dated April 20, 1977 from the Planning Director to the Commission .concerning application UP-296 (Lyngso Garden ~'~terials). The memorandum ex- plained that the Public Works Director was requesting the reopening of the Manor Drive street access to the Lyngso Garden Material yard, which would necessitate amendment of the use permit condition. ". The Secretary, explained that the condition concerning this matter (Condition #10) had been added to UP-296 by the City Council; and as such, the recommendation was made that the Planning Commission ask the Council for direction on this matter. It was the consensus of the Commission to request direction from the City Council on Condition #10. ~.O,~.~ISSION MINRIFES OF APR~7, 1977 -- VII. A. I~tlTTF.-.N CO~-~JNICATIONS - Cont'd 2. Memorandum dated April 18, 1977 from Chairman Belanger to the members of the City Council outlining the operation of the Commission Committee-of-the-~ole meeting. B. ORAL 1. .City Counci_l_ Report - Chairman Belanger gave an oral report of the City Council meeting held on April 20, 1977. A copy of the minutes of this meeting is on file at the City Administration office. 2. Other a. Commissioner ~rshall requested the Commission to consider a Commission policy whereby a site development plan must be submitted and approved on all lots with a slope in excess of 10% to eliminate problems ~th grading until a more complete grading ordinance had been established. He pointed out that presently the City had been dealing with grading problems via design review applications on a one-to-one basis, and he contended that the design review provisions did not have adequate enforcement provisions to assure proper grading of hillside lots. He noted that under the' provisions of Subdivision Ordinance No. 60, the advisor).' agency was empm~ered to require site development plans, and he urged that the Commission and LDC begin enforcing this provision. He explained that any modifications to the approved site development plan would have to approved by the advisor)., agenQ'. After discussion of this recommendation, it was the consensus of the Commission that the Subdivision Ordinance provisions authori- zing advisory agencies to require a site development plan on all lots i__n.__e~Cess of 10% be enforced until such time as a revised grading ordinance was' established. b. Chairman Belanger expressed appreciation to Mrs. Stark and Mr. Appleyard of the Good Government Group for serving coffee. VII I. ADJOUP~N'r Commissioner Lustig moved, seconded by Commissioner Zambetti, that the Planning Commission meeting of April 27, 1977 be adjourned. The motion was carried unanimously,~;and the meeting ~s adjourned at 12:10 a.m. ~ '~ty Van Duyn, Secr~ ' ""' sko/ ~ -8-