Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout09-11-1985 Planning Commission Minutes CITY OF SARATOGA PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES DATE: Wednesday, September 11, 1985 - 7:30 p.m. PLACE: City Council Chambers, 13777 Fruitvale Avenue,'Saratoga, CA TYPE: Regular Meeting ROUTINE ORGANIZATION Roll Call Present: Commissioners Burger, B. Harris, J. Harris, Peterson, Pines Absent: Commissioner Siegfried Minutes Commissioner Burger moved to waive the reading of the minutes of August 28, 1985 and approve as distributed. Commissioner B. Harris seconded the motion, which was carried unanimously. Resolution Presentation Chairman Peterson presented Resolution No. PC-151 to Louise Schaefer for her service and dedication to the Planning Commission. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS - None PUBLIC HEARINGS CONSENT CALENDAR 1. A-1125 - Gerhard Sander, Request for Design Review Approval to construct a two-story, single family residence which exceeds the design review standard on Lot 5, Tract 6722 (Horseshoe Drive), in the R-1-20,000 zoning district (referral from Site Review Committee) 2. A-1132 - Neal Kirkham, Request for Design Review Approval to permit a new, two-story, single family residence which exceeds the 6,200 sq. ft. allowable floor area standard at 14472 Sobey Road, in the R-1-40,000 zon- ing district The two items listed above were removed from the Public Hearings Consent Calendar. The public hearing was opened on A-1125, Gerhard Sander, at 7:37 p.m. Blaine Bowman, 14545 Carnelian Circle, referenced the letters that had been submitted. He asked that the following be considered: (1) Rotate the house slightly on the property to improve privacy and improve the way the house fits on the circle; (2) The contractor and owner enter into the CC&Rs on this property; (3) Ensure that the roadway is returned to the status that it is prior to construction, and (4) Mature and rapidly growing trees should be planted to replace the dead pines between the properties. Discusslon followed on the location of the proposed master bedroom in relationship to Mr. Bowman's home. Mrs. Bowman commented that mature landscaping would help the privacy problem on the first floor level, but would not solve the problem for years relative to the second floor level. Commissioner Burger gave a Land Use Committee report, describing the site. She commented that she feels that the dead trees between the two lots will have to be replaced regardless of the orientation of the home. She described the proposed driveway. She stated that it is probably advantageous to the other neighbors on Carnelian Circle to have the home rotated. However, on the other hand, there are homes on Horseshoe Drive that perhaps may be impacted if this house was rotated. Planning Commission Page 2 Minutes - Meeting 9/11/85 A-1125 Mrs. Bowman commented that if the house is rotated the back would face the fence where the mature plants are, and therefore it would not impact the neighbors on Horseshoe Drive. Gerhard Sander, the applicant, clarified that there is only one eastern window in the master bedroom and the adjacent property cannot be seen from it. He commented that it would not be too much of a problem to rotate the house slightly. Staff commented that it is not possible for this parcel to join the existing CC&Rs, but a subsequent agreement could be written. They stated that, according to the CC&Rs, this parcel does not have the right to use Carnelian Circle. He gave the history of the area and discussed the CC&Rs. They added that they feel that it is entirely appropriate, if this lot is going to use Carnelian Circle, that they participate in the maintenance and cost. The City Attorney stated that, while he does not think the City would necessarily have the right to require that the applicant becomes part of the CC&Rs, by the same token it is a condition of the Staff Report that they establish access. He commented that it seems that the only way that legal access can be established, based upon the CC&Rs, is that the owner of Lot 5, which is not mentioned in the CC&Rs, voluntarily subjects that lot to the CC&Rs and agrees to participate in the road maintenance, which is what the neighbors seem to be requesting. He added that if the road is damaged during the course of construction it would be the applicant who would have to restore the road, and not the other lot owners. Commissioner J. Harris moved to close the public hearing. Commissioner Burger seconded the motion, which was carried unanimously. Commissioner J. Harris stated that the point is well taken to rotate the house, as the neighbors suggested. She added that it was her feeling when driving out there, that it would give it a more cohesive look as a full circle if this house faced more towards the circle as the'others do. Commissioner J. Harris moved to approve A-1125, per the Staff Report dated August 30, 1985 and Exhibits B and C, changing Condition #5 to read: "Dead trees will be removed and additional trees will be planted, subject to Staff approval", and adding Condition #8 to read: "The house shall be rotated on the lot so it is more or less parallel with the eastern property line, facing more towards the court." Commissioner Burger seconded the motion, which was carried unanimously 5-0. The City Attorney requested the applicant to contact him relative to the CC&Rs. The appeal period was noted. Mr. Sander requested a slight increase in the square footage, noting the size of the lot and the neighboring properties. The square footage of the other homes in the area were discussed. Commissioner J. Harris moved to reconsider. Commissioner Burger seconded the motion, which was carried unanimously 5-0. Commissioner J. Harris moved to change Condition #1 to read 5750 sq. ft. Commissioner Burger seconded the motion, which was carried unanimously 5-0. The public hearing was opened on Item #2, A-1132, Neal Kirkham, at 8:05 p.m. Mr. Kirkham, the applicant, requested removal of Condition #3 regarding the Early Warning Fire Reporting System. He noted that there is no such ordinance; he is in the Central Fire District, and he questions the reliability of this sort of hardware. The City Attorney commented that this condition was put in the Staff Report in anticipation of the ordinance; however, it seems to be coming - 2 - Planning Commission Page 3 Minutes - Meeting 9/11/85 A-1132 to the Commission in advance of the ordinance. He explained the ordinance which is being considered later on the agenda. He commented that the Commission has the option to waive the requirement or defer action on this matter until after the ordinance becomes effective, and then it would be mandatory. He explained that the fact that this lot is in the Central Fire District doesn't really matter; the system sends the signal to Saratoga, which is then transmitted back to Central, and it will be Central responding to the call. He further explained to Mr. Kirkham that the ordinances and codes that either the Saratoga District or the Central District applies are the codes of the City, and the codes which the City adopts are applicable throughout the City. Therefore, while the City may be serviced by two separate districts, the laws and regulations applicable to the City are the same° Mr. Kirkham stated that he is only a mile from the fire house. There was a consensus to waive the requirement since the ordinance is not in effect at this time. Commissioner Burger moved to close the public hearing. Commissioner J. Harris seconded the motion, which was carried unanimously. Commissioner Burger moved to approve A-1132, per the Staff Report dated September 4, 1985 and Exhibits B, C, D and E, deleting the last two sentences of Condition 3. Commissioner B. Harris seconded the motion, which was carried unanimously 5-0. PUBLIC HEARINGS 3. A-1116 - Hashem and Nasrin Farr, Request for Design Review Approval to construct a two-story residence which exceeds the allowable floor area'standard at 15146 Sperry Lane, in the R-1-40,000 zoning district; con- tinued from August 14, 1985 Staff gave the history of the project. They stated that the Commission had reviewed this matter at the last study session and instructed the applicant to submit information relative to the discussions at that meeting. They commented that that information was not received until this week and Staff has not had time to review it. Therefore, they recommended that this matter be continued to the next meeting. It was directed that this matter be continued to September 25, 1985. 4a. Negative Declaration - SDR-1606 - Smilja Maynard 4b. SDR-1606 - Smilja Maynard, Request for Tentative Subdivision 4c. V-703 - Approval for two (2) lots and Variance Approval for one (1) lot to have a width of less than 150' at 19330 Saratoga-Los Gatos Road, in the R-1-40,000 zoning district; continued from August 14, 1985 Commissioner B. Harris abstained from the discussion and voting on this matter. Staff explained the application and gave the history of the project. They noted that they are able to make the findings and recommend approval of the Variance and also the granting of Tentative Building Site Approval° They added that they feel it should be the burden of the applicant to prove that there is acces to Bainter. The public hearing was opened at 8:18 p.m. Mrs. Maynard, the applicant asked that the requirement be deleted that requires the removal of the pool house° It was explained to her that the condition is to either remove the pool house or obtain a use permit. Don Lucas, 19370 Saratoga-Los Gatos Road, spoke in opposition to the lot split. Mr. Lucas gave the history of the project and described the area. He commented that the previous Commission had expressed concern that the approval of this variance' would set undesirable precedence in - 3 - Planning Commission Page 4 Minutes - Meeting 9/11/85 SDR-1606 and V-703 terms of creating nonconforming lots with unusual geometry. Sally Lucas commented that all of the trees have leaves now, bu~ they will change drastically during the winter months. Commissioner J. Harris moved to close the public hearing. Commissioner Burger seconded the motion, which was carried unanimously. Staff commented, regarding Mr. Lucas' comments regarding precedence setting, that it appears that Mr. Lucas' property would be the only property left that might be subdivided in the area. He described the other properties in the area. There was a consensus that the height should be limited in order to minimize impact to Mr. Lucas' lot, and careful attention paid to design review of the home on this lot. Chairman Peterson gave a report on the on-site visit, stating that there was a consensus that a house down there would not have an impact on Mr. Lucas. He commented that, while a variance was denied previously, he feels that the Commission can make the findings and not feel they are setting a precedence. He noted the fact that the lot is 1.7 acres. Commissioner Burger added that she does not feel that any vote that is taken sets a precedence. She explained that it does not automatically mean that because she votes in favor of or against something, that she is going to vote the same way on every other similar application. She added that she feels that each Commissioner carefully looks at each parcel that comes before the Commission, and the situation and all the surrounding information. Commissioner Burger moved to approve the Negative Declaration for SDR- 1606. Commissioner Pines seconded the motion, which was carried 4-0, with Commissioner B. Harris abstaining. Commissioner Burger moved to approve SDR-1606, per the Staff Report dated August 6, 1985, with Condition VIII-A amended to read that "Design Review Approval required on the project prior to issuance of permits, with a height limit of 22 ft." Commissioner J. Harris seconded the motion, which was carried 4-0, with Commissioner B. Harris abstaining. Commissioner Burger moved to approve V-703, per the Staff Report dated August 6, 1985. Commissioner J. Harris seconded the motion, which was carried 4-0, with Commissioner B. Harris abstaining. The appeal period was noted. It was noted that there seems to be consensus to look favorably upon a use permit for the pool house. 5a. Negative Declaration - SDR-1602 - Tom and Ann Copenhagen 5b. SDR-1602 - Tom and Ann Copenhagen, Request for Tentative 5c. A-1107 - Building Site Approval for a two (2) lot subdivi- sion of a 14 acre site with an average slope of 31%, and Request for Design Review Approval for a new, two-story, single family residence on lot B in the NHR zoning district at 14440 Pike Road; con- tinued from August 28, 1985 It was directed that this matter be continued to October 9, 1985. 6. A-1122 - John Page, Request for Design Review Approval to construct a two-story residence which exceeds the 6200 sq. ft. allowable floor area standard on Lot 8, Tract 6665, Saratoga Heights Drive, in the NHR zoning district; continued from August 28, 1985 (to be continued to September 25, 1985) It was directed that this matter be continued to September 25, 1985. - 4 - Planning Commission Page 5 Minutes - Meeting 9/11/85 7a. A-1131 - Robert and Marilyn McBride, Request for Lot Line 7b. LL #11 - Adjustment and Design Review Approval to construct a new single family residence which exceeds the 4,000 sq. ft. design review floor area standard at 20015 Cox Avenue, in the R-1-12,500 zoning dis- trict Staff explained the application, recommending approval. They noted the modification of the plot plan which eliminates the common driveway between the two parcels. They stated that they normally would support the common driveway, but in looking at the configuration of the two lots it would appear that there is a confined buildable area on the second lot; therefore, they are not opposed to the modification. The public hearing was opened at 8:45 p.m. Bob McBride, the applicant, discussed the conditions of the Staff Report, noting that the bay windows do not stick out into the setback. He also indicated that they would like to remove the two pine trees close to the house. Mr. McBridge commented that they would mark the large oak tree which they would like to retain on the revised plan. Discussion followed on the trees on the site. Commissioner Burger moved to close the public hearing. Commissioner B.' Harris seconded the motion, which was carried unanimously. The driveway was discussed. There was a consensus that the common driveway would be preferable. Commissioner Burger moved to approve LL #11, per the Staff Report dated September 3, 1985 and Exhibit B. Commissioner Harris seconded the motion, which was carried unanimously 5-0. Commissioner Burger moved to approve A-1131, per the Staff Report dated September 3, 1985 and Exhibits B and C. It was noted that Exhibit B shows the driveway having common access, and the approval is per that exhibit, with the applicant providing common easements for both lots. Commissioner J. Harris seconded the motion, which was carried unanimously 5-0. The appeal period was noted. 8. A-1133 - Philip and Patricia Sondeno, Request for Design Review Approval to construct a two-story, single family residence which exceeds the 6,200 sq. ft. design review floor area standard at 21412 Continen- tal Circle (Tract 6528, Lot 34), in the NHR zoning district The proposal was described by Staff. They commented that they were unable to make the findings and recommend denial. They added that they think that little effort has been made to step the structure into the hillside. The public hearing was opened at 9:06 p.m. Phil Sondeno, the appliicant, described the lot and proposal. He showed a sketch, showing a retaining wall and a lot of trees on the lower -portion, which will hide the bulk of the house. David Smith, the architect, gave a presentation on the project and described the lot. Mr. Smith discussed the new sketch which had been made after the on-site visit. He described the retaining wall and the proposed landscaping. Commissioner Peterson commented that the house has the perception of almost four stories. Commissioner Pines stated that he has a great deal of difficulty with the bulk of the house. He commented that he does not think the a~.Chitecth~ made ~ attempt to work with the steepness of the site. He added that he feels the perception of bulk is going to be - 5 - Planning Commission Page 6 Minutes - Meeting 9/11/85 A-1133 quite large from the way you view it down below. He stated that he has a great deal of difficulty working with the size of the house. He noted that it is essentially a two-story house with an extra floor below that is enclosed, instead of really working with major level changes, either stepping down the hill or segmenting the levels so it seems like it is working with the downslope of the site. He added that that is the type of design he would perceive on this site, after seeing the site and reviewing the plans. Commissioner J. Harris concurred. She noted that this home will also impact the view from the golf course at the Country Club. She commented that she would like to see a house that is more blended into the side of the hill. Commissioner Burger stated that while she feels the design of the house is appealing and she has no concern about the siting of the home, she still has the concern regarding the perception of height and bulk from Prospect and Parker Ranch Road. She stated that she feels perhaps those problems could be mitigated by the lowering of the roof. She added that she would like to see the square footage reduced, some backfilling against the wall and some heavy landscaping. She commented that she would also like to see a change in the color of the home. Commissioner B. Harris concurred. She stated that she feels that planting more trees along the perimeter of the home and using a darker color would do a lot to make the home blend into the natural surroundings. Chairman Peterson suggested that this matter be continued to a study session, in order to mitigate the Commission's concerns. The applicant agreed, and it was directed that this matter be continued to a study session of November 5, 1985 and the regular meeting of November 13, 1985. Break - 9:30 - 9:45 p.m. 9a. V-706 - Gene Bramlett, Request for Variance Approval to 9b. EP-21 - allow a 7 ft., 3 inch wall where 6 ft. is allowed along the rear and two side yards and an Encroach- ment Permit to allow a fence in a City right-of-way at 14440 Oak Place, in the R-1-10,000 zoning district The proposal was explained by Staff. They stated that they are unable to make the findings for the variance and recommend denial. They added that they are recommending approval of the encroachment permit. The public hearing was opened at 9:47 p.m. Bob Bramlett, the applicant, commented that if he cuts his fence down he will be left with a 4 ft. 9 in. fence in the back, and he has a pool. He explained that the property had been raised to make it level so it would not drain to one side. He indicated that he had talked to the neighbors who would be impacted and they had no problem with the wall. Commissioner Burger gave a Land Use Committee report, describing the .wall. She described the landscaping between the wall and driveway and the partial screening that is against the wall. Commissioner Pines commented that he found the fence quite beautiful and has no concern with the variance as long as the neighbors adjacent to the fence have no problems with it. Staff clarified that the application had come to the Commission based on a complaint. Don Miller, 20210 La Paloma, stated that his back property line is along Planning Commission Page 7 Minutes - Meeting 9/11/85 the last 100 ft. of the driveway. He spoke in support of the wall, stating that both he and the Boswells think the wall is beautiful. He indicated that before there had been a lot of refuse there from the former owners. The landscape architect described the lot and the wall. The drainage system was addressed. Lisa Donaho, 14441 Oak Place, spoke in support of the fence. Commissioner Burger moved to close the public hearing. Commissioner Harris seconded the motion, which was carried unanimously. Chairman Peterson noted that the Commissioners who have visited the site do not appear to have any real problems with the wall, and there are no neighbors making any complaints. Commissioner J. Harris pointed out that there had been previous discussion by the Commission regarding the granting of variances based on neighbors, and she feels that it is putting neighbors on a spot. She added that obviously somebody complained and that person has not felt free to come forward this evening. She commented that she feels as a citizen that whether or not the neighbors agree is not a basis for her decision. Commissioner Pines commented that he thinks a lot of it depends on what the fence looks like. He explained that we are talking about 15 inches over the code defined height, but in reality he does not think that you perceive that at all because of the nature of the construction and design of it. He noted that the fence is beautiful and shows a high degree of workmanship. Commissioner Pines moved to approve V-706, with the finding that it has no negative impact on the adjacent properties to warrant reducing the height by 15 inches. Commissioner Peterson stated that a fence 4 ft. 9 in. on the applicant's property does not give him the privacy he should have. Commissioner Burger added that there is a practical difficulty in removing 1 ft. 3 in. of a brick wall. Commissioner Pines stated that one of the reasons for the higher height of the fence is to fill in order to allow drainage not to encroach on any adjacent properties. Commissioner Burger added that the removal of 1 ft. 3 in. of this wall on the applicant's side immediately would not only affect the privacy of the applicant but would impact the neighbors, because the fence would be 4 ft. 9 in. on the applicant's side. Staff pointed out that the findings that the Commission is making tend to encourage the unpermitted construction of high walls and then use that as a means to make findings for not removing them. Chairman Peterson agreed but noted that there are no neighbors present who are complaining about it. Commissioner Pines stated that there are two issues. He commented that if the Commission wants to reprimand the applicant, as well we should, for building the fence that height, that could be treated with a fine. He added that he does not want to encourage people to skirt an ordinance, and he is not saying that he would approve any fence that came in higher than what the ordinance says. He commented that, having seen the fence, in this case the fence does not provide any negative impacts to the area. Staff indicated that they would require that a building permit be obtained and double fees will be charged for it. Commissioner Burger stated that she would not like to give the impression that the Commission is encouraging people to skirt the ordinance and build, and then come in and ask for a variance for something for which a permit was not obtained. She seconded the motion to approve V-706. The motion was carried 4-1, with Commissioner J. Harris dissenting. She stated that she believes that this is granting a special privilege. Chairman Peterson commented that, from his 7 Planning Commission Page 8 Minutes - Meeting 9/11/85 V-706 and EP-21 standpoint, if there had been anyone who had appeared in opposition to the fence he would have been swayed to vote no. Commissioner J. Harris moved to approve EP-21, per the Staff Report dated September 4, 1985 and Exhibit B. Commissioner Pines seconded the motion, which was carried unanimously 5-0. 10. V-707 - Carroll and Lois Bingham, Request for Variance ApproVal to permit construction of a garage addi- tion within 10 ft. of the side property line where a 20 ft. side yard setback is required in the NHR zoning district at 13801 Pierce Road The application was described by Staff. They indicated that there are other locations on site on which the garage could be constructed which would not require a variance. Therefore, they are unable to make the findings and recommend denial. Commissioner Burger gave a Land Use Committee report, indicating that the applicants are restricted in terms of where the garage will be built because a great deal of the rear yard has been lost to a landslide. She described the site and the adjacent lot on the southwest. She commented that the applicant h~s indicated that he has spoken to the neighbors on that side and there is no objection to the proposal. The public hearing was opened at 10:18 p.m. Mr. and Mrs. Bingham, the applicants, discussed the suggestion in the Planning Report to build the garage in the front yard. They indicated that it would detract from the appearance of their home and the community and would block their view. They add that it would also be a detriment because of burglaries they have had. Commissioner Burger moved to close the public hearing. Commissioner J. Harris seconded the motion, which was carried unanimously. Commissioner J. Harris described the site and stated that, considering that the applicants have no back yard and very little front yard, she does not feel that they would have any yard space if they put the garage in the front. She added that it is logical to have the garage directly straight ahead of the existing driveway and leave them some front yard. There was a consensus to that effect. Commissioner J. Harris moved to approve V-707, per the conditions of the Staff Report dated September 4, 1985 and Exhibit B, making the finding that it would be a practical difficulty and a physical hardship not having a front yard. Commissioner Peterson commented that the practical difficulty would be the fact that the landslide took away about 70 ft. in the back and precludes any further expansion for a garage. Commissioner J. Harris added that were the garage to be in front, it would be blocking the house off too much from the road so that, from a security point of view, it would not be as safe. She added that all of these points would be exceptional circumstances, and it is a common privilege to have some sort of yard. She stated that she does not think it is a special privilege because it is not common to lose the back yard and garage as these people did. Commissioner Burger seconded the motion, which was carried unanimously 5-0. 11. GPA-85-4 - Odd Fellows, Consider Amending a Policy within the Text of the Land Use Element of the General Plan which reads as follows: "No structure shall be over two stories in height except for structures located within the Village boundary as defined in the Village Area Plan" in order to consider placement of a three- story structure at 14500 Fruitvale Avenue - 8 - Planning Commission Page 9 Minutes - Meeting 9/11/85 GPA-85-4 Staff explained the proposed amendment of the policy within the text of the Land Use Element of the General Plan. They noted that Staff has provided four options for the Commission's consideration and discussed these. They stated that they were recommending approval of Option 4, which would have the text of the General Plan modified to indicate the three-story height limit for buildings on sites designated quasi-public in the General Plan map, where the slope underneath the footprint of the structure is 10% or more and a stepped pad is used. The public hearing was opened at 10:29 p.m. The architect for the Odd Fellows described the site on which they will have a forthcoming application. He stated that they were making this request because they feel that in this particular case and hillside location that the three-story building is more environmentally sensitive than a two-story building on the bottom of the hill and a separate one- story building on the top of the hill. He indicated that they have met with the neighbors. Commissioner Burger moved to close the public hearing. Commissioner J. Harris seconded the motion, which was carried unanimously. Chairman Peterson commented that Option 4 is almost specific to the Odd Fellows Home. At Commissioner .Pines' inquiry, the City Attorney explained that a use permit would be required as part of this project, and under the ordinance the Commission would have the authority to modify height limits through the issuance of the use permit. He added that under Option 4 the height would possibly be implemented by some amendment to the Zoning Ordinance as well. Commissioner Pines moved to direct Staff to bring back the appropriate resolution, recommending Option 4 to the City Council. Commissioner J. Harris seconded the motion, which was carried unanimously. The City Attorney explained that under State Law there is a limit on the number of amendments to the General Plan that can be adopted this year, and there may be a decision to delay this item. The Odd Fellows indicated that a delay should not be a problem. 12a. NS-60.17 - Consider an Ordinance adding Section 13.10 to the 12b. C-228 - Subdivision Ordinance, 14.14 to NS-3 and XIII to Chapter 3 of the City Code relating to the require- ment for installation of an Early Warning Fire Alarm System 13. GPA-85-5 - Amend Chapter 3 of the General Plan, Seismic Safety and Safety Element, to require installation of an Early Warning Fire Alarm System to new residences over 5,000 sq. ft., residences which expand 50% increasing the total square footage to greater than 5,000 sq. ft., multi-family dwellings, hotels, motels, and such commercial structures as determined by the Fire Chief The above two items were discussed simultaneously. The City Attorney explained the proposed amendments. Discussion was held on the 5,000 sq. ft. figure. The public hearing was opened at 10:48 p.m. Chiefs Ernie Kraule, of the Saratoga Fire District, and Doug Sporleder, of the Central Fire district, appeared. Chief Kraule discussed the cost and outlined the system. Chief Sporleder explained how the 25,000 sq. ft. figure evolved from the Task Force discussions. - 9 - Planning Commission Page 10 Minutes - Meeting 9/11/85 GPA-85-5, NS-60.17 and C-228 Chief Kraule stated that he would like to see the ordinance speak to the monitoring of the water flow alarm which would be in a commercial building, which would then be transmitted into the system. Therefore, if there was an activation of the sprinkler system the Fire District would get that information into the computer bank. There was a consensus to make this modification. Chief Kraule also asked that the ordinance require a sprinkler system in any new two-car garage. He discussed the cost of such a system. Chief Sporleder commented that the Central Fire District is completely in support of the Task Force findings. He stated that if the Commission moves beyond that they would like an opportunity to review and analyze the impact. After further discussion it was the consensus to table the issue of the sprinkler system in any new two-car garage, as suggested by Chief Kraule. There was also consensus to keep the 5,000 sq. ft. figure in the ordinance. Commissioner Burger moved to adopt Resolution No. GPA-85-5, recommending approval to the City Council, as amended. Commissioner J. Harris seconded the motion, which was carried unanimously 5-0. Commissioner Burger moved to adopt Resolution No. C-228-1, recommending approval to the City Council, as amended. Commissioner B. Harris seconded the motion, which was carried unanimously 5-0. COMMUNICATIONS Written 1. Letter from Aaron Berman, dated Septemer 3, 1985, regarding Via Tesoro Court. Staff was directed to send a letter to Mr. Berman, informing him that the Commission will include the points that he brings out in his letter in the Code revision discussions. 2. Letter from John Loera, dated September 5, 1985, regarding business license for JP Loera Automobile Interiors. After input from Mr. Loera and his father regarding their operation, there was a consensus to direct Staff to prepare the appropriate resolution to add this use as a conditional use, so it could be controlled by a use permit. 3. Letters from Owen Companies, dated September 4, 1985, regard- ing roofing materials and precast wall for Saratoga Office Center. Staff described the requests, and after a presentation by Ken Pastrof of Owen Companies, it was the consensus to allow a staggered wall and the roofing material proposed by the applicant. Oral by Commission and Staff 1. The following dates were noted: September 24th - Commission Appreciation Dinner, and October 15th - Joint City Council/Planning Commission meeting. 2. Commissioner B. Harris gave a brief report on the City Council meeting held on September 4, 1985. A copy of the minutes of that meet- ing is available in the City Administration Office. 3. Chairman Peterson thanked the Saratoga News for attending the meeting and the Good Government Group for attending and serving coffee. ADJOURNMENT Commissioner Burger moved to adjourn the meeting. Commissioner J. Harris seconded the motion, which was carried unanimously. The meeting - 10 - Planning Commission Page 11 Minutes - Meeting 9/11/85 ADJOURNMENT was adjourned at 11:48 p.m. , ly ~ mitted, ~ook Secretary' RSS:cd