Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout03-14-1990 Planning Commission Minutes CITY OF SARATOGA PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES DATE: March 14, 1990 - 7:30~p.m. PLACE: City Council Chambers, 13777 Fruitvale Avenue, Saratoga, CA TYPE: Regular Meeting Roll Call: Chairperson Tucker, Commissioners Burger, Harris, Kolstad,.and Moran. commission Tappan arrived as noted below; Commissioner Siegfried was absent. Pledge of A!legiance ApproVal.Of MinUtes.of.February 28~ 1990: BURGER/HARRIS MOVED TO APPROVE THE MINUTES OF FEBRUARY 28, 1990. Passed 5-0. 0RALCOMM~FNICATIONS: None. REPORT OF POSTING AGENDA: Pursuant to Government Code 54954.2, the agenda for this Meeting was properly posted on March 9, 1990. Te9hnical Corrections.to Packe~ Material: Commissioner Tucker noted that' she abstained from voting on Resolution No. DR-89-125 (item 6). PUBLIC HEARINGS CONSENT CALENDAR: 1. DR-89-122 Amaral, 12483 Greenmeadow Ln., request for design review approval to construct a 1262 sq. ft. first and second story addition to an existing one-story home for a total of 3865 sq. ft. in the R-1-12,500 zone district per Chapter 15 of the City Code (cont. to 3/28/90 at the request of the applicant'). 2. SD-89-018 Tassara, 19171 Oahu Ln., request for tentative map approval to create a two-lot subdivision in the R' 1-15,000 zone district per Chapter 14 of the City Code. Parcels would measure 16,738 sq. ft. and 21,978 sq. ft. (cont. to 3/28/90). PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Page 2 March 14, 1990 PUBLIC HEARINGS CONSENT CALENDAR Continued 3. V-89-048 Edfelt, 19355 Ranfre Ln., resolution approving request for variance approval to allow a proposed 183 sq. ft. addition to encroach 2 ft. into the required 12 ft. Side yard setback within the R-1- 15,000 zone district per Chapter 15 of the City Code (public heating closed on 2/28/90). 4. V-89-001 LaCroute, 12832 Star Ridge Ct., resolution approving request for variance approval to construct a 6 ft. high fence and waive the restriction on area enclosure to encompass an area greater than 4,000 sq. ft. in the NHR zone district per Chapter 15 of the City Code (public hearing closed on 2/14/90). 5. V-89-035 Gill, 13935 Saratoga Ave., resolution approving request for variance approval to reduce the required rear yard setback of 45 ft. to 37 ft. to facilitate construction of an addition to an existing home in'the R-I-20,000 zone district per Chapter 15 of theCity Code (public hearing closed on 2/14/90). 6. DR-89-125 Bye, 18806 Harleigh Dr., resolution approving design review to. construct an 880 sq. ft. second floor addition to an existing two-story home for a total of 3960.sq. ft. in the R-1-12,500 zone district per Chapter 15 of the City Code (public hearing closed on 2/14/90), 7. DR-90-014 Bhatnagar, 15091' Sobey Road, request for design review approval to construct a 1730 sq. ft. single story and 384 sq. ft. second story addition to an existing single Story residence in the R-1-40,000 zone district per Chapter 15 of the City Code. 8. DR-90-007 Baker, 15009 Park, request for design review approval to construct a 1476 sq. ft. second story addition to an existing one story home for a total of 4075 sq. ft. in the R-i-40,000 zone district per Chapter 15 of the City Code. 9. DR-90-001 Fireman, 13385 Surrey Lane, request for design review approval to construct a 2127 sq. ft. first and second story addition to an existing one story home for a total of 5261 sq. ft. in the R-i-40,000 zone district per Chapter 15 of the City Code. PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Page 3 March 14, 1990 PUBLIC HEARINGS CONSENT CALENDAR Continued Commissioner Moran requested removal of Public Hearings Consent Calendar Item 7. Commissioner Moran requested removal of Public Hearings Consent Calendar Item 9. HARRIS/KOLSTAD MOVED APPROVAL OF CONSENT CALENDAR ITEMS 3, 4, 5, 6, AND 8. Passed 5-0. 7. DR-90-014 Bhatnagar, 15091'Sobey Road, request for design review approval to construct a 1730 sq. ft. single story and 384 sq.~ ft. second story addition to an existing single story residence in the R-i-40,000 zone district per Chapter 15 of the City Code. Commissioner Moran reported on the land use visit, She stated she has a concern about the barn on the property and would like to see its removal a condition of approval as she feels the barn is an attractive nuisance. Planning Director Emslie presented the Report to the Planning Commission dated March 14, 1990. Commissioner Tappan arrived during the Public Hearing; the Public Hearing was opened at 7:38 p.m. Mr. Park Miller, Architect, stated the setback problem for the garage will be taken care of by essentially stepping back the corner so that it is clipped offl and the setback comes across at an angle. He said the owner intends to remove the barn and would not appeal that condition', but the square footage recommended includes the square footage of the barn. BURGER/HARRIS' MOVED TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING AT 7:40 P~M. Passed 6-0. Commissioner Burger stated she has no problem with the application, but she did share Commissioner Moran's concerns about the barn and would also like to see its removal as a condition for approval. HARRIS/MORANMOVED TO APPROVE DR-90-014 ADDING A CONDITION THAT THE BARN BE REMOVED. Passed 6-0. 9. DR-90-001 Fireman, 13385 Surrey Lane, request for design review approval to construct a 2127 sq. ft. first and second story~addition to an existing one story home for a total of 5261 sq. ft. in the R-I-40,000 zone district per Chapter 15 of the City Code. PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Page 4 March 14, 1990 PUBLIC HEARINGS CONSENT CALENDAR Continued Commissioner Moran reported on the land use visit. She stated there is an oak tree with an estimated diameter of 16 inches that appears to be healthy located at the edge of the proposed garage and that is why she pulled this item. Planning Director Emslie presented the Report to the Planning Commission dated March 14, 1990. Commissioner Tappan commented that he has difficulty with the design feature for the second story. He said he feels the design is incongruous with the rest of the design of the home as it has a lean-to effect. The Public Hearing was opened at 7:45 p.m. Ms. Kate Fireman, Applicant, waspresent. She said she feels the design of the second story is a=matter of opinion and also said they are planning on saving the oak tree° Commissioner Moran indicated she.would like to see saving of the oak tree a condition of approval~ Commissioner Burger also expressed concern about the oak tree and said that in the plans it looked as if the garage is against the tree. She said she does not liketo see pavement that close to an oak tree and even if it were possible to build that close to the tree the amount of trimming that would have to be done in order to accommodate the garage is excessive. She stated she would like to see the garage relocated so the tree is not lost. Ms. Fireman responded that the driveway is close to the tree but the garage is not. HARRIS/BURGER MOVED TO CLOSE THE.PUBLIC HEARING AT 7:50 P.Mo Passed 6-0. ~ Commissioner Burger said it does not appear the tree is on the plans and she would like to know 'exactly where the oak tree is and how it stands in relation to the:garage. Planning Director Emslie responded that the oak tree is in close proximity to the tree indicated on the plans and felt that is enough of a discrepancy, along with Commissioner Tappan's concerns, to continue this item for two Weeks to allow clarification and spotting of the oak tree. Also, alternate roof techniques can be explored in order tO address Commissioner Tappan's concerns. MORAN/TAPPANMOVED TO CONTINUE DR-90-001 TOMARCH 28, 1990. Passed 6-0. PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Page 5 March 14, 1990 PUBLIC HEARINGS: 10. DR-89-106 Guilardi, 15410 Pepper Ln., request for design review approval to construct a 419 sq. ft. first floor and a 1949'sq. ft. second floor addition to an existing one story home for a total floor area of 6931 sq. ft. :in the R-i-40,000 zone district per Chapter 15 'of the City Code (cont. from 2/14/90). Planning Director Emslie presented the Report to the Planning Commission dated March 14, 1990. The Public Hearing was opened at'7:55 p.m. Mr. Warren Heid, Architect, appeared for the Applicant. He reviewed his March 9 letter and explained the plans in detail. In response to a question from Commissioner Kolstad concerning Ms. Earls' request regarding the windows in one of the bedrooms, Mr. Heid responded that he feels the two windows do not invade privacy. The bedroom is not to be occupied and is intended to be a nursery in the future. Commissioner Kolstad expressed further concerns regarding the privacy issue, and Mr. Heid described the balcony and Stated when standing on the balcony one cannot see towards the north. Commissioner Kolstad also expressed concern regarding the health and safety issues posed by the old newspaper racks on the property. Mr. Heid. said he could not speak to that issue. Mr. Joe Guilardi, Applicant, addressed the Planning Commission. He commented on Commissioner Kolstad's concerns, and said he did not understand why issues other.than Planning Department issues were brought up. Mr. Guilardi said he felt he has attempted to comply with the needs of the neighborhood, and it depends on the attitude of the neighbors as to how he would proceed from here on. He said he did not 'believe these' issues were within the scope of this meeting. He indicated his lifestyle dictates the need for the porte cochere because of the 2rain, sun and smog problems. The one-car porte cochere does not meet his needs, but he is willing to accept it in order to satisfy the Planning Commission. Ms. Marian Earls, 15370 Pepper Lane, addressed the Planning Commission. Ms. Earls said she i's still not opposed to the second story. She said she did not feel: substituting the bedroom windows with clerestory windows would cause a hardship and doing so would be a relief to her. Ms. Earls said she would like staff to decide the placement of the trees and not leave that to the discretion of Mr. Guilardi or his architect. Ms. Earls circulated a picture of her Sight-impaired daughter's window and the shade approaching the window at mid-afternoon. She also circulated photographs taken PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Page .6 March 14, 1990 PUBLIC HEARINGS Continued from her roofline of the Guilardi house. She volunteered to remove the clear glass from the window overlooking the Guilardi property and put opaque glass in it. Ms. Earls also requested that removal of the trash at the property line be made a condition of approval as the magazine racks tend to attract rats to the area. Ms. Jane Gould, 15415 Pepper Lane, addressed the Planning Commission. She said she is particularly opposed to the porte cochere which impedes the enjoyment of her home. Mr. Carl Amdahl, 15370 Pepper Lane, addressed the Planning Commission. He requested that the Planning Commission take into consideration the facts of the matter and bring this matter to a resolution as soon as possible. He said since his wife first addressed the Planning Commission on this issue they have received several letters from Mr. Guilardi and the situation is becoming a problem for them. Mr. Michael Gould, 15415 Pepper Lane, addressed the Planning Commission. He said he is opposed to the porte cochere as it would take away the rural feeling of his home. Ms. Pamela Lavin, 15450 Pepper Lane, addressed the Planning Commission. She said she is concerned with the trees that might be put in and would like to see fast-growing shrubbery put in. She also expressed concern with the back deck which would overlook her front yard and part of her front garden. Mr. Heid reiterated that the plan which has been produced is sensitive. and he has attempted to have a building the neighbors would be happy to look at. Mr. Heid reviewed the plans and stated he was hopeful the Planning Commission would make a decision that would be satisfactory to all parties. BURGER/HARRIS MOVED TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING AT 8:30 P.M. Passed 6-0. In response to a question from Chairperson Tucker, City Attorney Toppel replied that the Planning'Commission has always dealt with the entire site when reviewing design review applications so it could be within the parameters of.the overall review to address the issue of trash removal. Commissioner Burger stated she is uncomfortable with trying to mediate neighborhood tensions and felt it would be inappropriate. She said, therefore, her comments'would be directed to the land use issue only. Referring to Commissioner Kolstad's concerns, she stated that because of the large setbacks she saw no problem with PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Page 7 March 14, 1990 PUBLIC HEARINGS Continued a two-story home that is sensitively designed, which she felt Mr. Heid has achieved. She indicated she would not favor any change in the neighbor's home in order to effect a conclusion in this case. The changes that have been made that were requested have met with staff's approval, and Commissioner Burger said she felt Ms. Earls' suggestions are good ones. She said she did not favor cutting the balcony from 10 feet wide to 5 feet and would prefer to see 8 feet. Referring to Nos. 1 and 3 of Ms. Earls' suggestions relating to the clerestory windows and trees for screening which address the privacy issue, Commissioner Burger said she would like to see the bedroom windows stay as they are but would like to see a number of trees planted along the suggested line in order to provide privacy]without creating a lot of shade. She indicated she would like a condition in the approval that the magazine racks be removed as they are Unsightly and are probably a health hazard or an attractive nuisance. Commissioner Burger indicated she had no problem with Ms. Lavin's suggestion for more landscaping. She reiterated her position on the porte cochere and said she would not vote against the application on that particular issue. Commissioner Kolstad said he concurred with Commissioner Burger regarding the porte cochere. He'indicated he would like to add a condition regarding the side screening that no additional fence movement or construction will inhibit the growth or survival of the bushes on the side of the house which presently exist. He also indicated he felt it would be odd to put obscure glass in the upstairs and screening could be done for privacy with trees. Commissioner Tappan indicated he did not particularly like the porte cochere but felt that Mr, Guilardi and his architect have been sensitive by cutting it down to a one-car arrange. He said he would prefer to see the columns treated sensitively by using a wood treatment or some type of softening landscaping treatment. Commissioner Moran said she appreciates what the Applicant and his architect have done but also feels the neighbors still have valid concerns and indicated she is unsure whether much movement has been made to accommodate the neighbors. Commissioner Moran commented that she thinks the porte cochere is overimposing for the neighborhood and would like to see the bedroom windows changed to clerestory and would like to specify the number, size and location of the trees. She stated she would like to see the tree issue settled before construction begins. She said she also liked the idea of the 5-foot pullback on the upper deck~ Regarding condition 9, Commissioner Harris said her understanding is the neighbors would prefer to have evergreen trees not along the north property line but they should be in line with the tree PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Page 8 March 14, 1990 PUBLIC HEARINGS Continued already in existence and landscaping would be added on the south side. Chairperson Tucker agreed with the comments made by the other Commissioners, but she is still not convinced that the porte cochere does not add bulk to the house and does not feel it is compatible with the neighborhood.. COMMISSIONER BURGER MOVED TO APPROVE DR-89-106 PER THE STAFF REPORT MAKING THE FOLLOWING CHANGES: ON CONDITION 9, THE LANDSCAPE PLAN SHALL BE APPROVED BY STAFF PRIOR TO ISSUANCE OF A BUILDING PERMIT (THE COMMISSION WOULD LIKE TO SEE MORE TREES ON THE SOUTHERN PROPERTY LINE, MULTIPLE RATHER THAN ONE, AND ON THE NORTH WOULD LIKE TO SEE TREES PLANTED AWAY FROM THE PROPERTY LINE IN LINE WITH THE EXISTING TREE. THE EFFECT .TO BE ACHIEVED IS ONE OF RAPID GROWTH AND HEAVY SCREENING AND NOTHING THAT GROWS HIGH ENOUGH SO THAT IT BEGINS TO CAST A SHADOW ON THE NEIGHBORS NEXT DOOR); OBSCURE GLASS WILL BE INCLUDED IN' THE BATHROOM ON THE WINDOW ABOVE THE TOILET; THE APPLICANT WILL WORK WITH STAFF IN ORDER TO ATTEMPT TO ELIMINATE A STRAIGHT-SHOT VIEW FROM THE BALCONY INTO BACK YARDS; THE MAGAZINE RACKS WILL BE REMOVED BEFORE PERMITS ARE ISSUED; THE SINGLE-CARPORTE COCHERE WILL HAvE WOOD POSTS, AS OPPOSED TO ALAVA TREATMENT, AND LANDSCAPING TO BE ADDED FOR A SOFTENING EFFECT; THE EXISTING LANDSCAPING ON THE SIDES.OF THE HOME WILL NOT BE DISTURBED · DURING CONSTRUCTION. Passed 4-2'; Commissioners Moran and Tucker dissenting. Break 8:55 p.m. - 9:10 p.m. 11. DR-89-074 Wu, 18836 Ten Acres Rd., request for design review SM-89-015 approval to construct a new 5995 sq. ft. two-story residence within the R-1-40,O00 zone district per Chapter 15 of the City Code. Site modification approval is requested to allow the building footprint to exceed the building pad boundary represented on the tentative map, and to allow a portion of the structure to exceed 22 ft. in height. A pool 'and a tennis court are also part of the application. Chairperson Tucker noted a letter received from Mr. Paul E. Nowack regarding this application. = Planning Director Emslie presented the Report to the Planning Commission dated March 14, 1990. The Public Hearing was opened at 9:10 p.m. PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Page 9 March 14, 1990 PUBLIC HEARINGS Continued Ms. Virginia Fanelli appeared for the Applicant. She reported the issue remaining from the last meeting was the alternative of a tennis court in relationship to the amount of grading. Ms. Fanelli presented a chart depicting the'visual impacts of the original proposal and the revised plan. =Ms. Fanelli cited Mr. Nowack's letter in which he indicated ~he would prefer the original application because he feels that. it will have less visual impact. Mr. Kevin Schallers addressed the Planning Commission. He said he is familiar with the area and is.supportive of the project. KOLSTAD/HARRIS MOVED TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING AT 9:17 P.M. Passed 6-0. Commissioner Moran said she wouldlike to see condition 11 changed to read "Exterior colors shall: be dark cream earth tones as submitted" rather than medium to dark cream. Commissioner Kolstad indicated he has no problem with the tennis court and was only concerned about the Schallers' privacy. Commissioner Burger stated she 'would be more in favor of the original submittal which keeps the tennis court down low. She also questioned if the site could be enhanced by landscaping in addition to the trees planned for the tennis court and suggested a condition be added for the landscaping. TAPPAN/KOLSTAD MOVED TO APPROVE SM-89-015 PER THE MODEL RESOLUTION. Passed 6-0. TAPPAN/HARRIS MOVED TO APPROVE 2DR-89-074 WITH AN AMENDMENT TO CONDITION 11 THAT THE EXTERIOR COLORS BE DARK CREAM EARTH TONES; THAT CONDITION 21 BE DELETED; AND THAT ADDITIONAL LANDSCAPING BE ADDED PER STAFF'S APPROVAL. 'Passed 5-1; Commissioner Moran dissenting. 12. SD-88-008 Rogers & Brook, San Marcos Heights Subdivision, per the subdivision condition of approval, the applicant submitted equestrian/pedestrian trail system plan, at the subdivision area, for consideration and approval. Planning Director Emslie presented the Report to the Planning Commission dated March 14, 1990'. He stated staff is concerned about extensive comments received from the City Horticulturist, and the Applicant and his landscape architect have been working to resolve the differences. There ~is staff concern that there will be extensive modifications to the plan, and staff would have no PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Page 10 March 14, 1990. PUBLIC HEARINGS Continued objection if the Planning Commission would wish to have the plan return to the Planning Commission for review. City Attorney Toppel commented that there is a recycling issue raised by this proposal. The City is required by State law to substantially reduce the amount of material going to landfills. One way of doing this is by collecting tree trimmings, shredding them and using the material as base material on equestrian and hiking trails. He encouraged not imposing the requirement for gravel. The Public Hearing was opened at 9:33 p.m. Ms. Virginia Fanelli addressed the Planning Commission on behalf of the Applicant. She distributed a revised plan and indicated the revisions did not change the 'layout of the landscaping but substituted certain types of plants and trees for others. She said the Applicant has no problem with continuing the trail through the southern portion of the open space as that will be deeded to the City. She did not feel this would be an appropriate time to do so since there is no connection of .another trail and it would lead into someone else's property. Mr. Bob Swanson, 19305 Crisp Ave., addressed the Planning Commission. He commented on issues that were brought up in study sessions on this item. One issue involved the trail map and the other dealt with emergency access. The neighbors raised the issue at one of the study sessions that they would like to see emergency access between subdivisions planned in such a way that it would become impractical to connect these at a later time. He noted on the site map that the connection between Crisp Avenue and Phase 3 appears to be the same size as the street. He said he thought there was an assurance that this would be designed in such a way so it would be an impractical matter in the future to connect the subdivisions. One of the issues had to do with public space. Mr. Swanson stated none of the neighbors envisioned this would turn into a formal set of trails that.might turn it into a "park". Ha said the neighbors would like to have the trail low key and not have the appearance of a park that might become a nuisance rather than an asset. ~ Discussion ensued among the Planning Commission and staff regarding the trail. Ms. Fanelli stated it is apparent the trail on the roadside on the fronts of the 10ts is not necessarily envisioned to be an equestrian trail but more of a pedestrian trail. She suggested that if the trail is intended to be a pedestrian trail the Planning Commission might choose to reduce the width. PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Page 11 March 14, 1990 PUBLIC HEARINGS Continued Planning Director Emslie suggested this item be continued in order for the Planning Commission to have the opportunity to review the completed plan. HARRIS/MORANMOVED TO CONTINUE SD~88-008 TOMARCH 28, 1990. Passed 6-0. 13. V-89-039.1 Chicken Salsa, Blue Hills Shopping Center, 12029 Saratoga-Sunnyva!e Rd., request for modification of sign program approved by the Planning Commission for Blue Hills Shopping Center in the C-N zone district per Chapter 15 of the City Code. Commissioner Burger reported on the land use visit. Planning Director Emslie presented the Report to the Planning Commission dated March 14, 1990~ The Public Hearing was opened at .9:55 p.m. The Manager of Chicken Salsa addressed the Planning Commission. He said one of the reasons that they decided to put up signs is to attract drive-by customers who pass by the restaurant at fast speeds. The yellow awning was decided on because it matches the color of the chicken. He said that many of the surrounding stores have neon signs. He pointed out that the awning is an extension of the ceiling and during the day time most of the awning is covered by shade. It is felt the blue will not do the job of attracting attention. Mr. Tom Ackroyd, 20608 Ritanna' Court, addressed the Planning Commission. His home is located behind the restaurant. He expressed concern that the chicken would be on top of the roof; he was assured by members of the Planning Commission that it would not be on the roof. HARRIS/MORAN MOVED TO CLOSE' THE PUBLIC HEARING AT 10:04 P.M. Passed 6-0. Commissioner Harris said she felt. the yellow is too bright for the awning and would like to see it kept blue to match the rest of the signage on the building. She also said she did not want to see the logo illuminated and wanted to see the window signs removed as she felt they were an eyesore. Commissioner Moran indicated she would like to see the blue approved by the staff and would lean toward a matte blue rather a shiny blue. PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Page 12 March 14, 1990 PUBLIC HEARINGS Continued Commissioner Tappan stated that he has expressed very strong feelings about signage in the past,'but he indicated that as a businessman he is sensitive to the Applicant in that the Applicant does rely on drive-home traffic and is tucked away in a dark corner in the shopping center. He felt that the Planning Commission should somehow be sensitive to the Applicant's Welfare and his business. He said he is not in favor of a matte blue awning nor is he necessarily in favor of a:very bright yellow awning. The blue that is used throughout the rest of the shopping center would be favorable. He also said he is not in favor of taking the neon signage from the window and that the Applicant should be permitted to leave it there as it is not that garish. Commissioner Tappan indicated he had no objection to the chicken logo but felt it should not be illuminated. Commissioner Kolstad agreed with .Commissioner Tappan's comments. Chairperson Tucker said she felt the awning should be blue and that it might serve the Applicant better to have a yellow chicken as opposed to a white chicken. The Chicken should be about 13 inches versus the 3 feet. She did not share Commissioner Tappan's concerns about the neon window because she does not think that grabs the attention. HARRIS/MORAN MOVED TO APPROVE V-89-039.1 WITH THE CONDITIONS THAT THE SIZE OF THE. LOGO BE 13 INCHES~BY 13 INCHES; THAT THE NEON SIGN IN THE FRONT WINDOW BE REMOVED; THAT THE AWNING BE THE SAME SHADE OF BLUE AS THE REST OF THE BUILDING UPON APPROVAL BY STAFF; AND THAT THE CHICKEN MAY BE YELLOW IF IT IS NOT ILLUMINATED. Commissioner Tappan commented that he believes the Planning Commission is being unfair to the Applicant in addressing the issue of the neon signage with respect to the rest of the businesses in the immediate area that have that'privilege. He said he felt that the salsa sign was tastefully done and the sign is supposed to be bright in order to attract customers. Commissioner Tappan felt the Planning Commission was being inconsistent and are giving other restaurant owners and merchants in the area an unfair advantage. Commissioner Moran said she has a problem with the chicken sign inside which is the same size as the chicken size on top and finds the sign to be unattractive. Commissioner Kolstad suggested leaving the neon sign alone until there a signage program. city Attorney Toppel responded that a condition could be included which states the Applicant shall remove the neon window sign if such signage is later prohibited'by City ordinance. PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Page 13 March 14, 1990 PUBLIC HEARINGS Continued Commissioner Kolstad also commented that the shopping center is not a walk-in center as other shopping centers and if there is no signage the restaurant could go unnoticed. He requested the motion be amended to allow the neon sign until the signage ordinance is prepared. COMMISSIONER HARRIS AMENDED THE MOTION TO INDICATE THE NEON SIGNS CAM REMAIN AND WILL BE REMOVED IF'SUCH SIGNAGE IS LATER PROHIBITED BY CITY ORDINANCE. The motion passed 5-1; Commissioner Burger dissenting. 14. AZO-90-001 City of Saratoga~ wall height in Commercial Zone Districts. The City of Saratoga Planning Commission is considering enacting a revision to the existing commercial zone districts to permit a solid wall or fence to exceed the 6 ft. height limit to a maximum of 8 ft. when conditions require additional visual and acoustic screening (cont. from 2/14/90). City Attorney Toppel reviewed the2Memorandum dated February 8, 1990 and the proposed ordinance in detail. Discussion ensued wherein City Attorney Toppel answered Planning Commissioners' questions regarding the Ordinance. There was Planning Commission consensus that the time schedule for compliance should be amended. Commissioner Burger suggested cutting the 6 and 12 month periods in half, the 18 month period to 12 months, and the 90 days period to 60 days. Mr. Jack Mallory addressed the Planning Commission. He commented that he felt the 18 month period in the time schedule might be a little long for an individual with commercial property and felt a 6 month period would be better. He expressed appreciation for the proposed ordinance. Chairperson Tucker reviewed the suggestion for the time schedule. Commissioner Moran suggested changing the 12 month period to 9 months. City Attorney Toppel suggested an additional time schedule indicating the terms of! the time frame to bring a fence into compliance once there has been an order from the City and suggested 60 or 90 days. City Attorney Toppel said he would like to discuss the proposed ordinance further with staff and could bring it back at the March 28 meeting. PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Page 14 March 14, 1990 PUBLIC HEARINGS Continued HARRIS/KOLSTAD MOVED TO CONTINUE AZO-90-001 TO MARCH 28, 1990. Passed 6-0. DIRECTOR'S ITEMS 1. Upcoming planning applications and projects. 2. Committee-of-Whole Minutes 3/6/90. 3. Heritage Preservation Minutes 2/7/90. COMMISSION ITEMS COMMUNICATIONS written oral ADJOURNMENT The meeting of the Planning CommiSsion was adjourned at 10:50 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Rebecca Cuffman