Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout01-12-1983 Planning Commission Minutes '~' f : i CITY OF SARATOGA PLANNING COMMISSION MINU~ES DATE: Wednesday, January 12, 1983 - 7:30 p.m. PLACE: City Council Chambers, 13777 Fruitvale Avenue, Saratoga, CA TYPE: Regular Meeting : ROUTINE ORGANIZATION Roll Call Present: Commissioners Bolger, Crowther, Hlava, Nell|s, Schaefer and Siegfried Absent: None Minutes : The following changes were made to the minutes of December 8, 1982: On page 5, the fifth 'paragraph should read: "Commissioner Crowther questioned' the geo- logical safety of locating the home at 'the location indicated on Lot #5, since this location was at the base of a steep hill. He asked whether a detailed .slope stability analysis had been done, including the consideration of the effects on earthquakes and on the adjacent Berrocal Fault Line. Mike Cleary, the geotechnical consultant, indicated ~hat the stability of Lot #5 had been thoroughly confirmed, including the slope stability analysis." On page 6, in the ninth paragraph, "He feels there. should only be 4 lots" should be listed as a separate third reason:~-. with (3) preceding it. On page 7, the vote on A-844, G. Butler, should be 5-0, and showing that Commissioner Bolger left t'he meeting pri:'or .t'o' th'e, vote. On page 8, the meeting was adjourned to a regular .adjourned meeting on December ].4, 1982, instead of January 4, 1983. Commis- sioner Bolger moved to waive the reading of the minutes of December 8, 1982 and approve as amended. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Hlava and was carried unanimously. The following changes were made to the minutes of Decemer 14., 1982: In the first paragraph, the third sentence should read:'.:i"CommiSs:'i.~n'e.~~ ~.r0'~'~i~er.-.^a~ke'd-~ viously .before the tie vote." The last'sentence should read: "Commissioner Crowther felt it should be in Area C's action program since Area A is directly adjacent to Area C and would be affected by what happened .in the hillsides. Commissioner Siegfried moved to waive the reading of the minutes of December · 14, 1982 and approve as amended. CommiSsioner Crowther seconded the motion, which wa's carried with Commissioner Bolger abstaining since he was not presen.t at the mee't'ing. Annual ReOrganization . Commissioner Schaefer was unanimously reappointed as Chairman and Commissioner Bolger was unanimously reappointed as Vice-Chairman for the upcoming year. CONSENT CALENDAR Items 1, 2, 4 and 5 were removed for discussion. Commissioner Bo!ger moved to approve the remaining item listed below on the Consent Calendar. The'.'motion -~vas se'd0n'd.e..'~"'by'.C0mmissioner Nellis and 'was carried unanimously 6'-0. 3. A-843 Donald Yauger, Request for Design Review Approval to construct a single story, single family dwelling in the R-i-40,000 zong dis- trict on Sobey Road : The balance of the items were discussed .as follows: 1. A-779 Dividend Dev. Corp., Carnelian Glen, Lot 3, Tract 6722, Request for One-Year Extension Commissioner Crowther questioned the Sta:ff Report condition, which refers to the easement as a pathway easement instead of a pedestrian-equestrian ease- ment as designated by the Commission at the time of approval for the Design Review. He also inquired into the request for abandonment of that easement, and Chairman Schaefer commente'd that the. Parks & Recreation Commission has recommended that the easement be retained, "and the..s. ubj e~t.~..yiz'!~'<:'.b'.e"'f-orw~r'de'd': to the Planning Commission and then on to the 'City CounCil. 1 Pl~.=..nning Commission Page 2 Meeting Minutes 1/12/83 " A-779 (cont.) Commissioner Crowther moved to approve the One-Year Extension for A-779, with the change of wording.in Condition No. 4 from "pathway easement" to "equestrian-pedestrian easement". It was clarified by the minutes of that meeting that it was the Commission's intent at the time of approval of A-779 to designate that as an equestrian-pedeStrian .easement,'and this would not be imposing a new condition. Jim Omsberg, Dividend Development Corporation, discussed the easement, report- ing that one of the homeowners had spoken with the intent to have the easement abandoned because of (1) vandalism and (2) The City was not maintaining the easement and he tho'ught it to be a security risk. Mr. Omsberg questioned whether anything will ever'be done in terms of maintenance, and when this has been determined he will then decide whether in fact this is a good use of the property or whether it could be put to better use by the private homeowner. The DepUty City Attorney stated that it~ should be clarified that the issue is that the.property owners are bound by the e~istence of the easement. He explained that if at a later date they wish to make an argument that the ease- ment Should be abandoned, they will have to initiate a proceeding to that effect. Commissioner Siegfried seconded the motion to approve the extension with the amended wording of Condition No. 4. Th~ motion was carried 5-1, with Commis- sioner Schaefer dissenting. 2a. A-812 E. Zambetti, Request for. Tentative Building Site Approval and 2b. SDR-1517 - Design Review Approval to'construct an office building adjacent to Parking Assessment District No. 4 at 14540 Big Basin Way CO.mm].S's .... ~.th the majority of the Commission with respect t6 th~ rezoning and necessary variance required for this project, and. for those reasons he would be unable to vote for the Design Review or Building Site Approval. It was noted that the exhibit being approved at this time should be "B-I". Commissioner Crowther moved to approve A-812 and SDR-1517 per..the Staff Report dated December 1, 1982, as amended. The motion was carried.4-2,' ~ith Com~iss'ioners Nellis and Schaefer dissenting. 4. SDR-1396 Bottom (Mauldin), Bohlman Road, 1 Lot, Final Building Site Approval' COmmissioner Bolger inquired regardino the water system. Staff commented that the water system has bee'n constructed and they assume it is of adequate capacity. Mr. Mauldin, the applicant, discussed the water line, stating that he had put it in according to specifications and Chief Kraule investigated it. Commissioner Crowther moved to approve SDR-1396, subject to the verification of the specified flow rate in the water system. Commissioner Bolger seconded the motion, which was carried unanimously 6-0. 5. SDR-1496 - R. Araldi, Canyon View, Request for One-Year Extension Staff explained that the Planning Commission had approved the driveway to be from Canyon View Drive, and at this time the lot has been graded so that the driveway'comes off the emergency access road to the McBain & Gibbs subdivision. They reported that it will require a modification at the time of Design Review. Commissioner Crowther stated that he felt the applicant should come in with the new plan, since they have graded it contrary to what was adopted. Mr. Afaldi, the applicant, explained that he had met with Staff and the Fire Chief to discuss the modification in the plan. He stated that he had talked to McBain & Gibbs to see if he could get possible access from their side, which was agreed upon by Rich Harison and the Fire Chief. He commented that at the time of discussion he felt that the cost was unjustified and he was not going to do it. He then verbally agreed on the phone to McBain regarding the fee and the staking out of the driveway. When he returned from his trip he found the property had been graded Staff indicated that the 'Commission could make the extension concurrent-'-"' Pl'~ning C~mmission Page 3 Meeting Minutes 1/12/83 SDR- 1496 (cont.) with the· Design Review. They stated th~at the change to the driveway will be a modification to the Site Development 'Plan, and what the Commission would be extending now is the Site ·Development Plan from Canyon View. Tree removal was discussed, and Mr. Araldi indicated that the reason the driveway was changed was to eliminate s'ignificant tree removal because of the retaining·walls. He added that there are not 'any retaining walls of any significance needed in the modified grading plan. Staff indicated that the Fire Chief had verbally stated that'he is not opposed to the driveway as it is now graded. They added that the new access is a better design and the driveway is less steep. Commissioner Crowther stated that he was concerned because there had been a lot of public discussion on this project, and he feels that the new plan should go back to the public. It was noted that the' Design Review ·will be a public hearing. Commissioner Bolger stated that he was somewhat·concerned that this situation would occur without the Planning CommiSsion being advised and moved to continue -~'l~'~-.~y~-F'---t.~_~nu~.-~.'2~--~o-~7-f'~83,. in order to get information from Rich Harison ~r~'~arding·the driVeWay and Chief Kraul~ regarding the fire situation. Commis- sioner·Crowther seconded the motion, which was carried unanimously 6-0. PUBLIC HEARINGS 6a. Negative Declaration - SDR-1527 - William Johnson 6b.·· SDR-1527 ~- William Johnson, Request for Tentative Building Site Approval for a 2-lot subdivision.at 18935 Monte Vista It was reported that the applicant has .requested a continuance to the February 9, 1983 meeting. The public hearing was opened at 8:29 p.m. No one appeared, and it was directed that this matter be continued to a study session on January 25, 1983 and the regular meeting of February 9, 1983. 7a. Negative Declaration SDR-1530 - ~nita KOrts Bolin 7b.· SDR-1530 - Anita Korts Bolin, Re·quest for Tentative Building Site Approval for a 3-lot subdivision for a site at the southwest corner of Sobey Road and Quito Road Stafi~_·gave a report on the project, indicating that a previous approval had The public hearing was opened at 8:31 p.m. Commissioner Bolger gave a report on the on-site visit. Bill Heiss, the civil engineer, appeared to answer any questions. Commissioner Siegfried moved to close the public hearing. Commissioner Bolger seconded the motion, which was carried unanimously. It was noted that the Negative Declaration had been approved with the pre'~ious approval. Commissioner Siegfried moved to approve SDR-1530, per·the Staff Report dated December 16, 1982. Commissioner Hlava seconded the motion, which was carried unanimously·6-0.· Commissioner Crowther expressed concern about the quality of the contour maps being submitted with the applications,. adding that he felt the City should have a requirement that all applications use orthophoto contour maps. Di·s- cussion followed on the process, and i~ was determined that this matter will be studied further at a study session.~ 8a. Negative Declaration SDR-1531 - Wilson Development 8b. SDR-1531 Wilson Development, Request for Tentative Subdivi·sion Approval for·a 9-lot subdivision for a site on Saratoga-Sunnyvale Road near Tricia Way Ehairman Schaefer reported ~hat it has' been approved by the City Council · through an executive session that there are to be 9 lots, and they will.~.j~e'-.~ - 3 - · Planning Commission Page 4 Meeting Minutes 1/12/83 -- SDR- 1531 (cont.) access off of Tricia Way. .She indicate=d that the issues that the Planning Commission will consider at this time are the location of the lots, the width and length of the lots, the landscaping and noise' 'mitigati'on of Saratoga- Sunnyvale 'Road, maintenance of landscaping, setbacks, fenceS, etc. She added that the City Council bad advised the Commission that they' were not to con- sider the number of lots or the access,' since these issues have been decided. The Deputy City Attorne~'d~sagreed eX~'l~i~ing't'h'at'the Council' 'did ~n'ter into (~".S'tipul.a~'on witt~ the 'dev~lope~ a'~ .a' w~y 0'~ settli'~g-pen'd~n~ '~itigation'."'-='H~w,- :',?ve.r ~. fi&..i.'.7.~¢.i'~ :H~i'S.'un.d~irs',tanding:"t:]~'~t~ .~hey. had. not .. given 's~'eci'~'ic di.rec.t ion' f'0 .this Cbmmission} 'an'd mit Would .be'.~Zhis:'' Opinion that' it wo.ul.d not'Have be~'n appro- · '.p2'~-'_i_~.te_ t6 :do _~0. ' "Th~".'.s~.ipU~.a.ti6n'proy'i"d'8'~f'.th~t th8 "app'!..ic_at'.iSn...:i.S t.o be pro-- -cess_'_ed in. the"'nb'rmal fashion, and from 'his point of view the Planning Commission should treat this a'ppiicati'on in the 'same manner as any other and either'approve, deny or modify. He added that the Commission should. i:~nore'_the fact that there w~s' litigation pending and that the City Council dld"ent.'er into .a stip~i-l'ation · wi. th '~he"' d~'~e. i~o'p~r .' ....... ' ' Chairman Schaefer stated that at the Joint Council/Commission meeting the previous evening the City Counci'l had told the Commission what she had earlier stated, and the Mayor had again told her that in a phone conversation that afternoon. She added that she stands corrected by the Deputy City Attorney; however, unfortunately this is an example of miscommunications. She stated that the Commission will therefore consider'.all. issues on..'this application. Commissioner Siegfried noted that three of the present Commissioners, including himself, had not been involved with the previous applications. He stated that he feels that he would like to take a 10ok at the property and have a study session on the project. : Commissioner Crowther commented that it is clear that this project exceeds the General Plan statement on the number of lots on a cul-de-sac, and one of the key issues for the Commission to review is the consistency with the General Plan. The public hearing wa's opened at 8:45 p.m. Staff reported that Lot #5 would have to be modified relative to its depth if the Commission does determine to approve the application. They added that, for continuity of the landscaping and the pathway, they would suggest that the right-of-way line on Lot #6 be adjusted to have uniformity of the easement width. Chairman Schaefer reviewed the previo. us .applications, .noting that there had been a very strong split feeling on the. Commission regarding the exit, and a differen'ce of opinion on what the number of lots should be. She stated that some of the concerns of the neighbors are traffic, noise off Saratoga- Sunnyvale Road, safety off of both 'areas, and the number of total lots. Dave Wilson, the applicant, gave the history of the project and described the current proposal. Alfred Ruffo, attorney representing the homeowners on Tricia Way, stated that he felt there should be at least a traffic report on this' project. He referenced a traffic study done by Renaldo Martinez on the previous applica- tion. Mr. Ruffo stjated that he felt there would be greater risk in increasing the. d:hn'~e.'r'.at..'B'iauer and SaratOg. a-SunnyVale"'ROad by:."t'h'e' cur'r&nt-propos"al..""'H6"'.. Urged":t~-l~"..YC6mm:i.'g"~ i on 16 t~a~e ~ ""f'a'i'~' 'hear'in~ '6n" ~t~'d.-a~'f l:c t i:on "aii'd fhe'.~8~i4fte~ judge it '.on i'ts merits without any impediment by way of the fact that the City Council has already agreed by stipulated judgment '.to a conclusion. He submitted a petition from the homeowners' regarding' the project. Mr. Wilson st~es'sed' the fact that time i.'s a hardship on his company. It was determined that individual interested Commissioners will make an on-site inspection. Commissioner Crowther commented that he .felt the Commission does not have the kind of facts that are needed to make a good .de&i.~ion. He moved that an EIR be required' for this project, including .traffic data. Discussion followed on the scope of the EIR requested by' Commissioner Crowther, and he then modi- fied his. moti'on to clarify that a traffic Study be required, which is a com- p'osite of the three studies previously prepared, to be made available to the Planning Commission to evaluate to determine if an."EIR is needed. CO.~,imissioner - 4 - PlaTnning Commiss ion _. Page S ....Meeting Minutes 1/12/83 SDR~.1531 (cont.) Bolger seconded the motion, which resulted in a split vote with Commissioners Nellis, Hlava and Siegfried dissenting, indicating that they' would like to see th'e individual reports 'first to se'e 'if they are 'adequate' before requiring that a composite report be done. Commissioners Crowther and Bolger amended the motion to st'ate 'that the three 'previous traffic studies be made available with some statement by Staff. The 'motion wa's carried unanimously.6-0. It wa's directed that thi's matter be continued to a study session on January 25, 1983 and the regular meeting of January 26, 1983. 9. Tract 5693 Phil Hong, 21072 Comer. Drive, Consideration of Expansion of Building Envelope, Lot #2, to allow for ret'aining wall' and fencing with grading, per Scenic Easement 'recorded on Tract Map Staff gave a history of this matter and the request made by the applicant, stating that the City Council has askedlfor a recommendat. ion from the Planning Commission. They discussed the available options. Commissioner Crowther stated that he had problems with all of the options because they have'major impact. He indicated that he was also opposed to expanding the building envelope just for a retaining wall, and it was clari- fied that the applicant could then build anything in that envelope. He asked the Deputy City Attorney i'~-.'it would be'possible to grant a variance'to permit retaining walls. The Deputy City Attorney commented that it was his 'under- standing that the easement was created as part of the Subdivision map and he would have a problem with modifying in terms of the easement which affects not only this property but everyone else's property in the subdivision. It was clarified that if the application is denied then the existing structure would have to be removed. Discussion followed on the process for restoring the area to its previous condition if the structure were removed. The public hearing was opened at 9:31 p.m. Ernie Porcelli, one of the neighbors, stated that Mr. Hong has violated some easements which were put in for a purpose not only for scenic but for drainage and preservation of the hills, and it has jeopardized his property directly b'elow it. He also pointed out that Mr. Hong has an unfenced pool which is .dangerous to. the neighborhood. He urged the Commission to do something about this situation which has been going on for 1~ years. Barbara P.~celli submitted pictures of the' problems that have been created. She indicated that if Mr. Hong is allowed to increase the building envelope and"put a fence on top of' the bank, they will be .in a hole with no view at all. Mr. H0ng, the 'applicant, reporte'd that the pool fence had been inspected by the' City yesterday. He described the fence and stated that the drainage on his property had been studied by a licensed engineer and he had said it was adequate for ret'aining walls. Staff noted that Mr. Hong had submitted plans to correct the retaining walls, which are being held in abeyance relative to de'termination of the' wall or building envelope to be modified. Janet Harris, 21083 Comer Drive, stated:that they had been required to appear before the City Council to get a variance for the scenic easement in order to have a driveway. She also expressed concern about the grading that Mr. Hong has ~one on the northwestern side of the property. She submitted photos of what the scenic easement had looked like' before the grading and pictures of the portion that has been graded.. She added that she finds the road objectional and the ground cover and vegetation have been removed. Mr. Hong discussed the four~wheelers and motorcycles on his property. He stated that if he receives a permit for 'the retaining wall he will do all of the landscape. tte also indicated that if the retaining wall has to be removed it will not look the same as before. Commissioner Bolger moved to close the public hearing. Commissioner Siegfried seconded the motion, which was carried unanimously. Commissioner Crowther asked'the Deputy City Attorney if the application is denied, is 'there some way to control wha.t is done on the property; can the requirement bel made that drainage be res'tored and acces's' by four-wheel vehicles across the property be'preVen'ted? - 5 - Planning Commission Page 6 Meeting Minutes' 1/12/83 Tract 5693 (cont.) The Deputy City Attorney commen. ted that, regarding the drainage, if the appli- cation is denied then that in effect le'aves him with a nuisance that we would abate through court proceedings 'if the applicant does not voluntarily correct the situation. He added that, regarding four-wheelers,'the property owner is responsible for maintaining his property. If he does' not do that either through its physical condition or through the use of the property, again there may be a nuisance situation that would be corrected through court proceedings. Discussion followed on the drainage. Staff indicated that if the matter is denied and the applicant is required to proceed to remove the work that he has .done, part of that removal would be the consideration of the drainage. They added that t~hey felt'if the applicant does not pursue the removal and the City has to do the 'abatement, the City would pursue the matter of the drainage to minimize the imp'act on the..adjoining properties. Mr. Procelli stated that he seriously doubted that, if the hill were to be put back in its natural state, his existing drainage system would be able to handle the normal flows'. He described the dra. inage system on the property. Staff noted that the process which the.Mr'~"~nd Mrs. Harris went through was the same as this one; essentially modi£ying the map and changing the scenic easement. Discussion followed on the desire to maintain control over the situation. Commissioner Siegfried stated that he understood the concern about wanting to keep control; however, he al~so had a concern that the tract was approved with certain easements and the. applicant'has chosen to go ahead and do significant modification to the topography of his land. He moved to recom- mend denial of the application on the b~sis that he would hope that when the matter goes to the City Council they will require .him to restore the land as best he can to its previous condition. Commissioner Hlava seconded the motion. Commissi'oner Bolger expre'ssed his conce~ that the situation w~ll continue on if strong action is not taken, and the Por.cellis will be left wi. th a situation that is impacting them.. After further discussion Commissioner Siegfried modi- fiedhis motion to recommend denial of.the.application and also recommend that the City Council look at appropriate a~tion to ensure that drainage is restored, that access of four-whe'el d~ive vehicles across the property is prevented by the landowner, and that the vegetation is restored. Commissioner Hlava accepted the modification, commenting that she has very strong feelings about the fact that it is important to maintain the integrity of the scenic ease- ments. Th~ motion was carried unanimously 6-0. The applicant was notifed of the ~ppeal period. DESIGN REVIEW 10. A-842 - Downey Savings, 14411 Big Basin Way, Request for Design Review Approval to construct a sign over 8 sq. ft. in area Staffsdescribed the proposal, which includes two small parking signs. Dis- cussion followed on the application~ specifically the private property sign. Commissioner Crowther moved to approve A-842, per the Staff Report dated December 23, 1982. Commissioner Nellis seconded the motion, which was carried 5-0, with Commissioner Schaefer abstaining, stating that she felt there were too many signs on the site. MISCELLANEOUS 11. General Plan Revision (Implementation Measures, Hazards Overlay Map, and Resolution Recommending Adoption' of General Plan) Staff reported that the Commission at this time should:~ (1) vote on the 'implementation measures (consensus items from study sessio~'.~ (2) adopt the Hazards Overlay Map as per the notation in the Staff Report"and by reference adopt the County Geological Hazards Map as well as the Division of Mines and Geology Map for information only, and (3) adopt the resolution forwarding the General Plan to the City Council, recommending approval as written. Staff suggested alternative wording for the implementation measures LU.4.1 and LU.7.1, to read: "The City will formulate 'criteria for the types of information required of major new .developments to adequately assess economic impacts."' Staff then summarized th~ implementation measures. - 6 - Planning Commiss ion Page 7 Mee".ting Minutes 1/12/83 ... ~.. Ge'ne'ral Pl'an (cont.) Commissioner Siegfried moved to approve the implementation measures as referenced and amended· in the Staff Report ·dated January 6, 1983. Commis- sioner Hlava seconded the· motion, whi·ch~ was ·carried· unanimously 6-0. Staff discussed the· Hazards ·Overlay Map and the ·refer·ence maps, the County Geologic Hazards Map and the· ·Division of Mine and Geology Map. Commissioner Nellis asked the Deputy City Attorney if the City might· have some liability if the hazards map did not show everything that it should. He replied that the intent of the map is to provide information and resource material; it is not in itself intended, nor should it be taken., to be a representation of what is there, or for that matter a basis upon which the City will approve an application. He added that the purpose· of the map is just to alert people to information that ·is available through maps; we are referring to work pre- pared by other departments~ not by the City. Discussion followed on the procedure to' be used if the Hazards O~erlay Map was not adopted. Staff pointed out that at this point it is just a draft map to show where the areas would be and it will be refined. It was the consensus that the map sho~rl-_.d jb"~'-'re'fin. e~d an~d· the 'nOte .'am~'~ded.to be'c0~e t~vo; i.e., (1) incorporation by reference of' the various other maps, and (2)' THIS MAP AND MAPS INCORPORATED BY REFERENCE ARE ONLY MEANT TO PROVIDE GENERAL INFORMATION (in bolder type and larger print), to call it to the map reader's attention. Commissioner Siegfried moved for adoption of the Hazards Overlay Map with the note set out in the Staff Report· of January 6, 1983, amended as stated above. Commissioner Nellis seconded the motion, which was carried unanimously 6-0. Commissioner Siegfried moved to adopt Resolution No. GPA 82-2 and forward it to the City Council, recommending the General Plan as written. Commissioner Hlava seconded the motion. Commissioner Crowther stated that he feels strongly that the Commission has not done their job on the General Plan. He commented that the Commission has not.. sed~i.j '~'r'. r'~.v.'.i'F._.x~,d aH~',~Tii~egr~ted_y...t_=lj6 do..~,Um~B..t.."a~-' 'a~, ~q-h:6:!ja ;' '_:jan. d-, :t~l-~:er~:-..':, "" i- .'ar~;:? many""'open. areas .that are be.i'ng' le..f_t :to" th'.~: C0tfn"di'l_Y...He ._adaed_ tha~ 7lie"also 'feels' fhat there are areas "of the General Plan that are inadequate. He stated that he feels that the area plans are in fairly good shape but believes that the Commission did an inadequate .jOb on th_e elements~, explaining that he thinks there are a number of holes .-~in_.t.j~e~.' ...F. te '.~jndifCa~..d..,'tl~at h.e.wou'l.d vote' against the motion. Commissioner Nellis commented that .he was on the GPAC and the Planning Commis- sion for part of this process. FIe stated that it has been two ye_ars sin~e the beginning of the proces:s, and .wh'i. le 'h.e migl~t....a'~tY~it '.~hdt' fhe~e-are parts of the plan that are not perfect, he thinks that overall a very been done on i.t, and he has no problem voting for this resolution. The vote was taken on the motion, which carried 5-1, with Commissioner Crowther dissent- ing. COMMUN I CAT IONS Oral 1. It was determined that the process for revision to the Subdivision Ordinance concerning "rounding down" will be discussed at the Committee-of- the-Whole on TueSday, January 25, 1983. 2. Chairman Schaefer thanked the Good Government Group for attending and serving coffee, and also the 'Saratoga News' for attending the meeting. · * SEE ADDENDUM TO ORAL COMMUNICATIONS ON PAGE' 7a. ADJOURNMENT Commissioner Siegfried moved to adjourn the meeting. Commissioner Hlava seconded the motion, which was carried unanimously. The meeting was adjourned at 10: 20 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Robert S. Shook Secretary RSS:cd P~anning Commission 3.~.. ~.. Page 7a j'Meeting Minutes 1/12/8 ADDENDUM Oral Communications (cont.) 3. Further discussion followed on the breakdown in communications regard- ing the Wilson application. It was noted that it had been the understand- ing of the entire Commission, at the Joint Council/Commission meeting, that the number of lots and access from Tricia Way had been decided and that those issues should not be considered by the Commission at this time. Chair- man Schaefer added that she had also been given the same input from the Mayor that afternoon. She stressed that this was very embarrassing for the Commission, especially after Staff had been directed to make sure that legal input on this matter be given to them before the meeting tonight. She asked if there was any way that the Commission could have been notified in advance that the direction had been changed. Commiss'ioner Hlava added that at the joint meeting the Mayor had requested Staff to make sure that someone was present at the meeting from the City Attorney's office to give direction to the Commission. Staff indicated that they did not know the direction from the City Attorney's office until the meeting tonight. They indicated that they had requested the City Atto. rney's office several days ago to pro- 'vide the Commission with information relative to this matter. The Deputy City Attorney stated that he was unaware of the direction that the Council had given the Commission at the joint meeting. He added that if he had known he would have made a point to communicate with the Commis- sion prior to the meeting. He explained that their office has been in communication with the applicant's attorney so they knew what position was being taken; however, it had been his understanding that the Commission had been given no direction at all. He commented that the stipulation was discussed during an Executive Session, which is expressly permitted during litigation, and it was discussed at.a public hearing and the resolution "adopted by the City Council at a public meeting. He added that the Commis- sion is not a party to that stipulation; they can make their'own recommenda- t. ions. The Deputy City Attorney apologized for the miscommunication and stated that he would try to avoid this situation happening again. .4. The article in the Saratoga News regarding bed and breakfast establish- ments was discussed.. It was clarified that such establishments will require a conditional use permit and will have to be adjacent to major arterials.