Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout01-08-1992 Planning Commission minutes'~~ f N ~' ' CITI OF SARATOGA PLANNING COMMISSION 4'~ MINIITES ~! ,t ::, :~~ DATE: January 8, 1992 - 7:30 p.m. . PLACE: City Council Chambers, 13777 Frultvale~Ave. TYPE: Regular Meeting - ---------------------------------------------------------------- Roll Call Chair Moran called the meeting- to order at 7:30 p.m. Present were Commissioners Moran, Favero, Forbes:,, Tucker, Durket and Bogosian. Commissioner Caldwell was absent. Pledge of Allegiance Minutes - none ORAL COMMIINICATIONS (THIS PORTION OF THE MEETING~IS RESERVED FOR PERSONS DESIRING TO ADDRESS THE COMMISSION ON ANY MATTER NOT ON THE AGENDA. SPEAKERS ARE LIMITED TO TWO MINUTES. A MAXIMUM OF 15 MINUTES WILL BE ALLOWED FOR THIS ITEM.) There were no requests. REPORT OF POSTING AGENDA Pursuant to Government Code 54954.2, the agenda for this meeting was properly posted on January 3, 1992. Technical Corrections to Packet Associate Planner Walgren stated that there were three corrections. The first correction is to Item #6 the lot line adjustment application made by Head/Allison at 14684 Pike Rd.: On page 65 half way down the Lot Line Resolut:~on #91-005 the first NOW, THEREFORE, the paragraph should conc]~ude "Prior to recordation of the Deed, the applicant. shall receive City Council approval for both the GPA and the amendment to Zoning Ordinance Resolution which are attached to the packet. The second correction is Item #10, application for Design Review made by Thomas at 14000 Pike Rd.: On page 116 a new Condition #12 following the geotechnical review conditions should read '!applicant shall pay all outstanding fees associated with the City geotechnical consultant's review of the application prior to zone clearance. Condition #12 then becomes #13 and so on. The last correction is to Item #12, Persco for~Variance approval at 14761 Bohlman Road, staff has received a letter which had been distributed to the Commissioners requesting continuance of this item to the January 22 Public Hearing. Chair Moran suggested that the Commissioners handle that matter as it appears on the agenda. PIIBLIC HEARING CONSENT CALENDARZ THESE ITEMS WILL BE ACTED UPON IN ONE MOTION UNLESS THEY ARE REMOVED FROM THE CONSENT CALENDAR FOR DISCUSSION BY COMMISSIONERS OR ANY INTERESTED PARTY. 1 1. DR-91-033 - ~Cocciardi; 22631 Mt. Ede•Road, request for i~ design review approval to remodel and expand an existing two-story residence with one and two-story additions totaling 6,675 sq. ft. pursuant to Chapter 15 of the City Code. The subject parcel is 3.2 acres in area and is located east of Mt. Eden Road within the City's NHR zone district (cont. to 1/22/92 at the request of applicant; application expires 2/8/92) ------------------------------------------------------------- 2. UP-550.2 - Desert Petroleum; 12600 Saratoga Avenue, request for use permit approval to modify the existing signage at a gasoline service station from GASCO to ARCO per Chapter 15 of the City Code. The subject property is located within the R-M-5,000 P-C zone district (cont. to 1/22/92 at applicant's request; application expires 3/3/92). ------------------------------------------------------------- There were questions of staff regarding these requests. Associate Planner Walgren reported that the first Item, #1 for Design Review that staff was having difficulty supporting changes to the plan, the item had been scheduled for Public Hearing, but at the last minute the applicant met with the architect and agreed to modify the plan to staff's original recommendation, so those plans are currently being revised for the January 22 Public Hearing. Comm. Favero questioned why the request for continuance of Item #2. Planner Walgren replied that technically this application is separate from the review of the Use Permit itself and is basically is a design review for the proposed sign. He also stated that this is really similar to the first item, the applicants basically have decided that they are amenable to revising their proposal. He further stated that it will be a new proposal. MOTION to approve Items #1 and #2 on the Consent Calendar to continue to the January 22, 1992 Public Hearing. M/S Tucker/Favero Ayes 6 Absent 1 (Caldwell) Comm. Forbes requested that the record show he arrived at the Public Hearing at 7:39 p.m. Chair Moran so noted, and advised that Comm. Durket was late also. PUBLIC HEARINGS ** (THE PLANNING COMMISSION POLICY RELATIVE TO PUBLIC HEARINGS IS THAT THE APPLICANT'S PRESENTATION SHALL BE LIMITED TO 10 MINUTES, AND OTHER SPEAKERS WILL BE LIMITED TO 3 MINUTES). 3. DR-91-035 - Chen, 12505 Crayside Ln., Lot #18, request for design review, approval to construct a new 5,511 sq. ft. two-story residence on a one acre parcel within the R-1-20,000 zone 2 ,~ • - district per Chapte ~~~ subject property is subdivision; ,(cont. expires 2/8/92). r 15 ofche Cit Code. The Y Lot #18 of the Beauchamps from 12/11/91; application Planner Walgren summarized the staff report. Staff feels the design review findings can be made to support the project. Chair Moran asked about the percentage of site coverage. Planner Walgren said he would provide that. Chair Moran further said she found the technical information very helpful. She asked if staff had discussed with the applicant the possibility of reducing the entrance element to one story. Planner Walgren replied he was not sure if the applicant was specifically asked to bring it down to one story, but in general that was part of the original request for modification, to minimize the vertical element. Comm. Durket advised that he had reviewed to proposal, indicating that he was absent from the previous hearing when this project was discussed. Comm. Moran opened the Public Hearing at 7:45 p.m. Steve Yenn, architect, spoke on behalf of the applicants. He indicated that not only had the height been reduced, but also the elevation had been reduced. The circular drive has been removed. The entrance has been changed to reflect the Commission's concern. (It was very hard to understand the speaker, as the recorder seemed to be cutting in and out). Comm. Forbes asked if the starburst effect on the front door could be omitted. Mr. Yenn replied the starburst is located so that it is not readily seen. Comm. Moran called for a motion to close the Public Hearing. M/S Forbes/Tucker Ayes 6 In response to Comm. Favero, Planner Walgren stated there are no trees existing on the subject property, there is an extensive landscape plan proposed, which would be in the Conditions of Approval of this development. Comm. Favero said that upon reviewing the design, his impression was that rather sincere efforts were made to meet Commission's concerns. He said he was prepared to vote in the affirmative, however his one concern is with the fact that the final landscape plan shall be subject to the approval of the Planning Director. Planner Walgren replied the General City Guidelines are sufficient to review the species. He said it is a Condition of the Resolution, that it either be installed or bonded for. There is a standard process for verification of this. Chair Moran suggested an approval with an added condition that the applicant work with staff to put the entry element at a maximum of 18 feet. 3 .. M/S Favero/Tucker~The application be approver M/S Favero/Tucker Amended original motion in favor of a single story. Ayes 6 Chair Moran told the applicants that the applications was approved and said there is 15 day appeal time when the application may be appealed to the City Council. ------------------------------------------------------- 4. DR-91-037 - Chao, 21894 Villa Oaks Ln., request to construct a new 5,845 sq. ft. two-story residence within the Mt. Eden Estates subdivision per Chapter 15 of the City Code. The parcel is approximately 43,996 sq. ft. and is located within the NHR zone district (cont. from 12/11/91; application expires 2/22/92). Planner Walgren summarized the staff report. Chair Moran opened the Public Hearing at 7:58 p.m. Mr. Alex Lesitar, the designer representing the applicants, spoke in favor of the application. M/S Bogosian/Tucker Motion to close Public Hearing. Ayes 6 Comm. Durket requested condition for darker colors. M/S Forbes/ Ayes 6 The transcribing machine cut out and the tape switching made it impossible to get the motion. Chair Moran told the applicants that the applications was approved and said there is 15 day appeal time when the application may be appealed to the City Council. ------------------------------------------------------- At this point, Chair Moran mentioned that tonight there was a very large agenda and the Commission does not open new items after 11:30 p.m. and so would appreciate the help of everybody to keep comments to the point. ------------------------------------------------------- 5. SD-91-004 - Wirnowski, 20140 Mendelsohn Ln., request for tentative map approval to subdivide a 40,920 sq. ft. site located within the R-1-20,000 zone district into two new parcels of 20,000 sq. ft. (parcel A) and 20,920 sq. ft. (parcel B), pursuant to Chapter 14 of the City Code. This minor land division has been determined to be categorically exempt from environmental review per the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) guidelines (cont. from 12/11/91; application expires 3/10/92). 4' Planner Walaren su3R~iarized the staff report. ~aff feels that the ~~ proposed lot would be compatible with the existing development in this neighborhood and the necessary findings can be made to recommend approval of the application with the Conditions contained in the Resolution, including Condition #19. Comm. Tucker referred to page 30 of the staff report "main structure will need to be removed prior to filing for final map. The applicant has also agreed to remove the detached 6 car garage . ." saying she could not find a Condition of Approval for this. Staff said Condition #18 in the Resolution covered this. Chair Moran opened the Public Hearing at 8:02 p.m. Bill Heiss, Civil Engineer for the applicants, said the staff report accurately presents the facts. Mr. Heiss indicated on the overhead the location of a huge garage, over 2,400 sq. ft. stating the previous owner was a collector and repairer of automobiles and motorcycles. The applicants feel the proposal would be an improvement in the neighborhood. Mr. Heiss said the proposal of two lots would be consistent with the lots in the neighborhood. He said Mr. and Mrs. Wirnowski wished to build on the back parcel and keep the front parcel for family members. Comm. Bogosian asked what the intention was for the driveways along the side. Mr. Heiss said at this time there were no plans for that and until construction began there would be no activity as far as fencing, etc. Comm. Bogosian said he was more interested in the driveway and the neighbor on the other side--will this be just open area with the two driveways coming together. Mr. Heiss said it would be two separate driveways. Mr. Ken Higgins of 14820 Mendelsohn Ln. spoke in opposition of the application. He referred to the lot plan, and said it shows his plot as being one of the flag lots. His main concern is the current standard for lot sizes for a lot in the 20,000 sq. ft. neighborhood. He said a potential house in each one of these lots could be well over 4, 000 sq. ft. , most of the homes in the adjacent lots are about 2,500 sq. ft. Mr. Higgins said by approving these two parcels you potentially open up the development of these two lots into 4,000-4,500 sq. ft. homes. There is a potential to overbuild and still stay within the current standards of the City of Saratoga. Comm. Tucker asked Mr. Higgins if it would be his rear yard that would be abutting the proposal. Mr. Higgins said his house was fairly close to the center of his property, it would be the back and side of his property, the bedrooms would be closest to the proposal. In answer to a question from Chair Moran, Mr Higgins answered his house is 10 ft. from his lot line. Chair Moran asked staff what the setback requirements for a new house that would be built in the rear would be? Planner Walgren replied it would be approximately 20 ft. from the northwest property line, 50 ft. from the rear property line. Staff said that one of the conditions of Tentative Map approval would be that both of the developments on either of these lots 5 would require desi~i review approval and would 3e subject to review `~ by the Planning Commission. The intent at this point is that if there is a more desirable location for a house it could be emphasized as a condition of the Tentative Map. Planner Walgren said he would like to amend an earlier statement--for the R-1-20 district the front setback, facing Mendelsohn would be 30 ft. but both side setbacks are 15 ft. and the rear setback for one story is 35 ft. it increases to 45 ft. for a two story. Mr. Wirnowski said he respects the neighborhood and its values. He does not intend to change the neighborhood, except to improvement its value. Mr. Heiss said the existing home and garage are about 24 ft. from the property line. M/S Moran/ Closed Public Hearing Ayes 6 Comm. Bogosian said he sees two major issues here, the first regarding traffic, the second regarding the height of the house. He said he would have no problem in supporting this proposal, but say at the outset he will only be able to support the proposal if it is agreed to lower the limit to 18 ft. in height. Comm. Tucker asked if all the homes in the area were all 18 ft. in height. Planner Walgren answered there are taller structures. Comm. Tucker said she would be comfortable with the 22 ft. height. Comm. Durket said he would second the comments of Comm. Bogosian and is prepared to make a motion.' He also agreed that the initial building of 18 ft. in height is appropriate for this neighborhood. Comm. Favero said there is substantial neighborhood opposition to this proposal. He thinks there is reason to not approve this on that bases. Comm. Forbes asked if the Commission limits the height of the building can there then be a limit to the square footage? The Planning Director answered yes you can, this can be conditioned and then it would come back and at that time you can make a judgement as it would relate to the site. Comm. Tucker said she would like to have it known what the Commission is hoping to achieve at the outset. She said her concerns are not only height and square footage, but she would also like to have the Commission consider increasing the setbacks to 25 ft. on the side yard in the back lot. Comm. Favero asked if this the appropriate time to discuss this or should that be limited to the subdivision itself. Chairperson Moran said she would like to have it known what the Commission is hoping to achieve at the outset. Chair Moran said the question she asked is it within the Commission's purview to establish or modify setbacks, height requirements at the time of the tentative map. The City Attorney replied to the extent that the structure put on the parcel influences your decision then it is appropriate to, upon condition to the tentative map. If you feel it is a sensitive 6 situation that neE~ more additional control tTan is contained in the Ordinance, then it is appropriate to have discretionary ' approval, keeping in mind that once a tentative map is recorded the privilege has been granted. If you can live with whether it is a one or two story then it is not appropriate, but if it makes a difference you can do it. Comm. Favero said he would want steps to be taken to see there is smaller square footage. Comm. Tucker made a suggestion that the Commission consider continuing this and asking staff to come back with a different recommendation. There is a general sense that we would like to move forward we would like to reduce the height, reduce the setbacks, etc. She said she did not feel that it is quite fair to the applicant. The Planning Director said staff would be happy to do that, perhaps one or two of the Commissioners would make at least one motion for consideration which would deal with the 18 ft. height, the second issue was square footage a number which had been chosen (3,000 square feet) and that side setbacks be established that is about the limit to what you could do and it represents what we would come back with in two weeks. If that motion is made and seconded and fails for some reason, he said he is not sure what staff would come back with in two weeks. Comm. Favero asked if the Commission could ask the neighbors in opposition if this is something that would be more acceptable to them. Chair Moran asked Is that acceptable to the Commission? Comm. Bogosian said no it is not acceptable. The public hearing has been closed and the neighbors have been heard from in writing and verbally and he said it would be highly out of order to open the Public Hearing again. Comm. Durket said we are saying that we have what they have had to say and we now want to incorporate it into the motion. M/S Favero/Forbes Reopen the Public Hearing. Ayes 3 Noes 3 The vote was a tie, the Public Hearing was not reopened. Comm. Tucker said when we take design review and do it at the subdivision level it is unfair to the applicant and to the neighbors, unless we have specific concerns that can be mitigated by such actions otherwise to do so ties the applicants hands and eliminates possible desirable options. M/S Durket/Bogosian Move to approve SD-01-004 with the amendment to Condition #19, to change the 22 ft. figure to 18 ft. to add a Condition #26 to the fact that the side yard setbacks will be set at 25 ft. for the proposed lot. Because it is being lowered the maximum square footage should be about 4,000 sq. ft. Comm. Favero proposed an amendment to the proposal--that the square footage be lowered to 3,000 square feet. Comm. Forbes second. 7 Comm. Bogosian sai~he would also be satisfied-with the heiaht of 18 ft. and keeping the side setbacks, he thinks the Commission can justify those. He said the unique placement of the lots, the fact that those are pie shaped lots on the side the proximity of the other houses he feels the Commission can justify those two. Chair Moran said the minutes would reflect the Commission's concern with regards as to how this would impact the neighborhood. She agrees with Commission Bogosian. Chair Moran said there is a motion to amend the main motion to put the maximum at 3,000 sq. ft. Ayes 2 Noes 4 Motion fails. Chair Moran now moved to the main motion, which is to approve with the Conditions outlined by Comm. Durket, regarding height and setback. In answer to a question from Comm. Forbes, Planner Walgren interjected the maximum allowed floor area per parcel A, the front part, would be less than 4, 000 sq. ft. per the Code regardless what additional conditions are added to the parcel. Comm. Tucker announced she would be voting against the proposal as she desired further review before unduly placing restrictions on applicants that may result in a less desirable outcome. Moreover, concern over the issues raised can be solved during design review. Ayes 4 Noes 2 (Comm. Favero and Tucker) Chair Moran announced that is approval of the application, and the decision may be appealed to the City Council during the next 15 days. 6. LL-91-005 - Head/Allison, 14684 Pike Rd., 20700 Saratoga GPA-91-002 Hills Rd., request for lot line adjustment AZO-91-004 approval to relocate an existing lot line per Chapter 14 of the City Code. The proposal involves amending the General Plan designation boundaries and rezoning portions of the parcels involved from R-1-40,000 to Northwestern Hillside Residential (NHR) to conform with the revised property lines. An environmental Negative Declaration has been prepared (cont. from 12/11/91; application expires 6/19/92). Planner Walgren summarized the staff report and said Staff is recommending that the Planning Commission accept the attached report and make a declaration and approve the lot line objectives by adopting the Resolution and recommend approval to the City Council of General Plan amendment 91-002 and amend the zoning Ordinance 01-004. 8 Comm. Forbes askea''"staff is there any immedia~ purpose besides just clarifying the lot lines? Planner Walgren replied it appears that the intent is just to take in their accessing easement which is currently situated on the adjacent parcel and have that become part of this parcel. Planner Walgren replied to a question from Comm. Favero that there are large parcels involved but technically on parcel B the allowed floor area and impervious coverage would reduce because their parcel is reduced somewhat and conversely for parcel A. However, this lot line adjustment does not create any non conforming or increase any existing non conforming situation with regard to the allowable floor area setback for impervious coverage. Chair Moran opened the Public Hearing at 8:48 p.m. Mr. C. Foley spoke on behalf of the applicant, Bill Somers, stating the reason for this application is strictly to take the access of easement to parcel A and add the access to the property. M/S Favero/Forties motion to close the Public Hearing. Ayes 6 Chair Moran called for a motion on this item. M/S Favero/Forties to approve item LL-91-005 subject to the conditions added by Planner Walgren. Ayes 6 M/S Favero/Forties to approve item GPA-91-002 Ayes 6 M/S Forbes/Favero to approve item AZO-91-004 Ayes 6 Absent Caldwell Chair Moran said that is approval for all the items on #6 and further stated that there is a 15-day time period in which this could be appealed to the City Council. The Planning Director clarified the LL is approved and stands at abeyance and GPA and AZO will be forwarded to the City Council for legislative action. Chair Moran called a break at approximately 9 p.m. Meeting reconvened at 9:15 p.m. The Planning Director advised the City did receive, today, a letter from the Department of Housing and Community Development related to the City's Housing Element or lack thereof. He has prepared for you a copy of the General Plan Guidelines for the Housing Element. There is no discussion or consideration required on this matter, it will be reported to the City Council. He also said he is assuming they will get some direction. Comm. Bogosian asked just as a point of information, assume the City doesn't get around to complying with this letter, are there any penalties involved? 9 The Planning Dire..tor stated that he had <: rather detailed discussion with the City Attorney and he understands that the City Attorney is going to be answering this question to the Council and he would let him answer this. ------------------------------------------------------------ 7. SUP-91-006 - Sieber, 13505 Myren Dr., request for use permit approval to allow an attached 775 sq. ft. second unit on a 12,290 sq. ft. parcel per Chapter 15 of the City Code. The property is located within the R-1-10,000 zone district (cont. from 12/11/91; application expires 4/29/92). Planner Walgren summarized the staff report. He said Staff feels that the necessary findings can be made to recommend approval of the application with the conditions contained in the attached Resolution. Comm. Favero asked if the structure that we are talking about has already been built and used without permits, and what we are trying to do now is, after the fact, give a permit for something that should not have been done. Planner Walgren replied, the envelope of the building is single family residence, the permit was to improve an attic area and it was a result of the field inspection that the second unit was discovered that the second unit was not even in the attic area, it is in the front portion of the existing residence. Comm. Favero asked if this conforms with all City Codes? Planner Walgren answered yes. Comm. Tucker wished to clarify for Comm. Favero, because she was on the Commission at that time, initially the applicant came in for an addition to a single story home. It was discovered by a PSO that it was more of the height of a two story building and the applicants had applied for a one story, if the applicants had applied for a two story application it would have had to come before the Commission for design review. After he received approval for a one story, he came back sometime last year and asked to put windows in and to make it legal like a two story that was already there. In the process staff noticed that their was another kitchen which in essence made it a second unit also and the requirement at the time of approval was that the applicant had 90 days in which to either put in forms for legalization of ,the second unit or to take the kitchen out. What we are now seeing is the application for legalization. Planner Walgren wished to clarify two points. The original application reviewed by the City administratively to allow the added construction was prior to the rewriting of the Code after 1987. Even as a added condition that would require design approval for exceeding 18 ft. in height. Then the application was made in 1991 to finish off the added habitable space. The condition on the Resolution for the design review was that the kitchen be removed prior to either issuance of permits or certificate of occupancy. 10 The kitchen facili~which constitutes the seco~ unit was removed. °~ So now they would be reconstructing the kitchen. Comm. Forbes asked staff if it was legal to have two families in that one family house. Planner Walgren said the City Code permits one second unit which is essentially what would be called a "granny" unit and there are occupancy restrictions either the main residence or the one permitted second unit if you meet all of the area requirements and access to parking and slope requirements that either the main residence or the second unit be occupied by someone over 60 years of age or older or somebody physically handicapped. Second units are not permitted on hillside parcels or any lot with an average slope greater than 10%, the lot size has to be bigger that what is prescribed for the zoning district if there are detached there must be additional parking and a number of standards. In response to a question from Comm. Favero, Planner Walgren said he did not specifically recall what was on either side of the property, but the track is developed with similar homes. Comm. Favero asked if this application would not necessarily be out of context with adjacent properties. Planner Walgren said by granting a second unit Use Permit the envelope, the physical appearance of the building, wouldn't change from the building that is currently there. Comm. Favero asked what the ramifications would be if the Commission didn't approve this application. Planner Walgren said applicant would not be permitted to operate the second unit, they would not be able to obtain the permits to rebuild the kitchen facilities. Chair Moran asked if it is necessary for the applicant to build an additional garage and therefore build more structures on the property in order to obtain a second Use Permit. Planner Walgren said that is correct, the additional detached one car garage would be a requirement of approving the second Use Permit. Chair Moran opened the Public Hearing at 9:14 p.m. Mr. Sieber, the applicant, spoke in support of his application, stating this unit was strictly for his mother-in-law. M/S Forbes/Favero motion to close the Public Hearing. In answer to a question from Comm. Durket, Planner Walgren said second unit Use Permit is actually recorded on the deed of the property, which lifts the restrictions on the property. Comm. Durket asked how would you find out if it was rented out? Planner Walgren said it would be permitted to be rented out if the person met the occupancy requirements. Comm. Durket asked if you would just rely upon neighbors to point this out? Planner Walgren said that is basically the only way you could follow up on that. 11' Comm. Tucker said~ctually in the Code it sa~ that each 5- ear Y ~~ interval from the date the Use Permit is granted that the holder of the permit shall certify to the Planing Director on such a form as he would prescribe that it is the applicant's responsibility each ' 5 years, to let staff know. She feels that this application is kind of a bait and switch situation, where the City is told one thing, then it comes in under the guise of something else. She states that she cannot really deny this second unit this evening because of the language of the Resolution and the Ordinance, but the Ordinance does give the power and the authority to make sure that we preserve the statement and findings that "the limitation and control that is required to avoid excessive density development of single family residential site ." This is the first time, since she has been on the Commission that this has come up. She refers to Section 1556.08 of the Use Permit that it may be granted for a specified period of time with or without the right to apply for an extension. Comm. Tucker said she would like added that when this building and property is sold it is with no right to apply for extension. Also there should be landscaping, especially in the front. Comm. Favero had a question along those lines. If Commission approves this, and he is inclined to take the applicant's word at face value that this permit for occupancy of the second unit, could it be for a specified period of time, after which they would have to come back to the City for additional approval periodically, perhaps two years. The City Attorney said that definitely is the appropriate way to do it. The Code specifically allows the time to be limited at the time, it also runs with the land; it does not cease upon sale of the property, but you can put a time limit on and you can restrict extension if you think that is appropriate. M/S Favero/Tucker moved to approve this application with the condition that the permit be in existence for whatever time is decided, then two years from then or for whatever time is decided upon, additional approvals after the expiration would be at no charge. Comm. Bogosian pointed out that there were no neighbors opposing the application. If the Commission puts this restriction on does this mean the applicant would have to come back every two years and pay another $700 or $800? Planner Walgren answered that is correct, they would have to make another application. Comm. Tucker suggested a condition that after Mr. Siebert's mother- in-law no longer lives there that he comes back. She said that the problem that historically has come up is that people circumvent the law and rent them out to seniors and the in effect become duplexes. Which is opposition to single family units. Comm. Favero has a problem with the whole thing. He does not like the government getting too involved with people's personal lives. Planning Director said I suggest that you can review it if it seems inappropriate, it would be policed the same way others are and if 12 there is an a a~t pp reason it would be reported back to the Commission. Comm. Tucker said then she would be in favor of Comm. Favero's suggestion of two years to make sure that there is no problem with the neighborhood. Comm. Forbes said he would like an amendment to Condition 7--adding the words ". a person sixty years of age or older, who is directly related to the applicant, " Comm. Durket said he does not think both those conditions can be done legally. He feels the Commission should just approve this as the draft is. He does not feel there should be a special two year term, only because of the financial burden and it also suggests that we do not trust the applicant. If we get complaints from the neighborhood, we retain jurisdiction over this, and can take action to forego the Use Permit. Comm. Favero said he would like to have a vote on his motion to approve the application with the provision the it will come back in two years--Chair Moran asked if the fees will be waived? Comm. Favero replied yes. Comm. Tucker asked about landscaping. Comm. Favero said he was willing to amend his proposal to include that. Comm. Bogosian said he his willing to support that if the provision is there that the applicant does not have to pay the fees. The City Attorney said the statute had a relationship requirements when it was first adopted, but the relationship requirement was later amended out. Chair Moran said there is a motion on the floor for approval with three trees added to landscaping, that the applicant is requested to do whatever they normally have to do in five years, in two years, but the fees would be waived in two years and that would be the only additional condition. Ayes: 6 Chair Moran told Mr. Siebert that was an approval of his application. This decision could, be appealed to the City Council in the next 15 days. ------------------------------------------------------ 8. UP-89-002.2 - Hemingway Cat Clinic; 12840 Saratoga-Sunnyvale Road, request for use permit renewal to operate a cat veterinary and boarding facility within a C-N zone district pursuant to Chapter 15 of the City Code. Planner Walgren summarized the staff report, and said Staff is recommending that the Use Permit #89-2.2 be approved as submitted with the elimination of the renewal provision. 13 Comm. Favero wishe~to comment that rather than having peo le that P are against something, there are actually half a dozen letters for the use. Chair Moran wanted to be sure that the petition is not current. Planner Walgren said that the petition was submitted at the time of the original application. Comm. Favero wished to clarify that this was strictly for cats, not dogs. Planner Walgren replied that was the original concern in 1990, but that issue seems to have been resolved. This renewal provision is just to ensure that the cat boarding in general and veterinary service has not changed. Comm. Favero said he would be voting on this for cats only, not dogs. In answer to a question from Comm. Forbes, Planner Walgren said if the Commission eliminates the provision for the six months renewal, it would run with this commercial use. The Planning Director interjected that it seems to be the purpose of this first review to see it that they would be able to meet the conditions and staff has found that they have established themselves as good neighbors. Chair Moran opened the Public Hearing at 9:33 p.m. Dr. Lyn Shannon, the applicant and owner of the cat hospital spoke in support of her application stating she said the facility had been open a little over two years and she has over 6,000 cats as her clients, it has been very successful. Despite the recession she said she is very busy. Ann Marie Burger spoke in support of the application. M/S to close the Public Hearing. Tucker/Favero Comm. Tucker motion to approve of this proposal. Comm. Favero said he will vote for this, but his concern is in an ownership change, and perhaps the conditions as they exist today be unacceptable to the neighbors, he would like to have an avenue for this permit to be withdrawn. We, probably cannot do this on the basis of ownership, but we can do it on the basis of time. Chair Moran stated that the Commission is permitted at any time to withdraw a Use Permit. The Interim Planning Director said that a Use Permit is conditional on the conditions and if the circumstances change--ownership notwithstanding, it is possible for the Planning Commission to call and notice and ok a verbal hearing without further action. Comm. Bogosian questioned if, say the ownership should change and perhaps the conditions were to become unhealthful, would that be another avenue or would that be something the Planning Commission could use. 14 The Interim Planni~ Director said it would Se one more thing. ~~ Ownership in itself doesn't constitute the breach of the permit. Changing conditions for whatever reason if they have not been lived up to, is grounds for the Commission to notice for a Public Hearing. Chair Moran wished to clarify the motion and second. Secretary replied Comm. Favero had seconded, the City Attorney said she had Comm. Forbes second--Comm. Forbes replied help yourself. M/S to approve this application.. Tucker/Favero. Ayes 6 Chair Moran told the applicant that was approval of the application, there is a 15 day right to appeal the decision to the City Council. Chair Moran advised those present that the Commission has on the agenda, several more items, and if anybody present would like to ask that their item be continued to the next meeting. No one volunteered, so the Chair continued. 9. DR-91-061 - Marchetti; 14668 6th Street, request for design V-91-016 review approval to construct a new, 2,386 sq. ft., two-story, single family home, and a request for variance approval to encroach into the required front, side and rear yard setbacks in the R-M zoning district per Chapter 15 of the City Code. Planner Walgren summarized staff report. Chair Moran opened the Public Hearing at about 9:40 p.m. Mr. Marchetti said he is hoping the Commission will accept Alternative #1. He gave a brief biography on his wife and himself. He said they had purchased this property last August with the intent of converting it into a home for their family. Even though the property has restrictions, he feels the Village area is what they have been seeking. This is not a "speck" home, it will be their residence. They need to utilize as much space as possible to accommodate their family and justify their investment in the property. This is a non conforming lot. Both R-M and R-1 standards are impractical. The proposed footprint is more conforming to setbacks than the existing house yet it allows some room for a backyard. On 6th Street the setback from the road would be 27 ft. He said this is the first new construction in the area. Allowing single family rather than multiple dwelling in the R-M district will encourage other single family dwellings rather than multiple dwellings. Thus reducing congestion in the area. He feels this development may encourage others in the area to make improvements. Mr. Marchetti said they have talked to many in the neighborhood and they support the project and some of their comments are "this home will be an attractive addition to the neighborhood". He presented to staff 38 signatures who are homeowners who are in favor of the proposed plan. 15 _ Mrs. Marchetti wistTed to thank George White anu James Walgren in the Planning Department for all their help in this project. Comm. Bogosian asked staff if you add in below grade rooms that is up to about 3,000 sq. ft. Planner Walgren said the residence including the garage would be close to 4,000 sq. ft. minus the garage would be about 3, 600 sq. ft. and that is including the 1, 200 sq. ft. below ground, it will be finished off, but it will be below grade. Comm. Tucker asked if this application would harm the tree that is already there. Planner Walgren said the tree you are discussing is on the adjacent property. The City Arborist was not involved in reviewing this proposal because the tree is not on this lot. Mr. Herman Wersh and his sister, stated they had the adjacent property--after much discussion it was discovered they were not speaking about the Marchetti property. M/S to close the Public Hearing Favero/Durket. Ayes 6 Chair Moran closed the Public Hearing at 9:55 p.m. Comm. Bogosian stated he looked over the site and has seen the plans. He cannot make findings number one of the Variance that there is a special circumstance with the lot. There are alternatives that could be proposed for building on this lot that would conform to the setbacks. Therefore at the outset he will not be able to support the project on those grounds. Moving on to the issue of the design, he would like to see something that did conform to the lot brought back to the Commission. Comm. Favero says he is also concerned with the size of the home versus the lot, however the Commission is talking about mixed residential, multi-family and there is no opposition from the neighbors. The kind of Variance that the Commission is granting seems to be minor setbacks versus an attractive house in an area that is already quite high density with condos nearby. He will be proposing that the Commission approve this application. Comm. Tucker said she will not be able to vote in favor of this proposal, because like staff she cannot make the findings for the Variance. She said her thinking is to look at this as an R-1-10 and to try to put something that would conform to those standards on this lot. Comm. Favero said that is exactly the attraction--that we have the benefit of lower density environment in a situation where it is both multiple family dwelling and has the density, and the applicants are willing to put in a single family home in a mixed zone. Comm. Forbes agreed that it is a well designed house, but this is not the place for the house, so he said he will not be supporting this. Comm. Favero asked what it would take to get support? Chair Moran asked if this was R-1-10 lot what would be the maximum house size? Planner Walgren replied 2,400 sq. ft. above grade is 16 _ just under 2,400 s~ft. but that is excluding the garage, because the interior height is less than 7-1/2, roughly, including the garage it is now 2,800 sq. ft. Comm. Favero asked what is acceptable to the Commissioners as a single family house size? Comm. Forbes said 2,400 sq. ft., and one story above ground. Chair. Moran said she finds two-story to be appropriate there. Comm. Favero said he felt comfortable with that, because of the two-story condos right down the street. Comm. Bogosian said he would seek a plan that scaled down the house. He believes a single family dwelling can be economically and feasibly built on that lot and still conform to the setbacks. He would like to see that presented to the Commission, maybe in a Study Session. He agrees with Comm. Favero that a single family use would be more desirable than multi-family. He would like to see if the applicant could come back with some alternative that would fit. He would move toward the staff's #3. Comm. Favero said if we ask the applicant to come back with a modified design that either would conform precisely to the rules or with more modest variances required. Would that be something that would be acceptable to you? Perhaps a 300 or 400 sq. ft. reduction? Comm. Bogosian said he would like to see something at the outset that would meet the setback requirements, not exceed them at all. Comm. Tucker addressed Comm. Favero's concerns--some of her concerns are along the same lines as Comm. Bogosian in that this house is in this area, the R-M area, but the homes adjacent to it are modest two-story and directly to the north that is a much lower elevation to this home. When there is not enough setback then privacy issues start coming up. She finds it very difficult to grant the Variance. The Interim Planning Director interjected that in the discussions you have given the applicant and their design professionals a more than a little bit of direction. In proposing Alternative #2 you have suggested that they meet the R-1 setback since there are preparing for a single family house, I think that we can provide them comfortably, at least for the look-see to stay within the R-1 and to have the flexibility of the Variance if it is necessary against the R-M requirements. If you are leaning in that direction both set of restrictions to meet the R-1 standard would give them at least the condition of the lot. One other matter that he wished to talk about--Comm. Bogosian suggested that they come back to a regular meeting or a study session--he reminds the Commission that the Study Sessions agenda is pretty well filled up for the next couple of months, he would suggest that the option would be to come back to a regular session. Chair Moran said the Commission is dealing with a very small lot and privacy concerns can add up very fast and whatever we do for this lot we will have to live with it for many of the adjacent lots. City Attorney interjected she would at least like to make a comment--in deciding which of the three options to give direction 17 _ on, keep in mind tTrat two of them do require findings and as you try to decide which way to go you might look at the Variance, you could find yourself to make findings. They are strict and difficult as you can tell from staff's struggle with the staff report. Chair Moran said suggestion #2 seems to be we are giving a strong signal to the applicant to extend right out to the yellow box. Comm. Tucker gets the impression that the yellow line is meeting all the setbacks that are required by the R-1-10 zone, taking into consideration that this is a substandard lot. The City looks at substandard lots differently and makes adjustments in setback calculations. Chair Moran said this is not zoned R-110. The Planning Director said the zoning of the property is R-M. If they can meet the R-1 standard, it is still going to be necessary to grant a Variance because they are in the R-M zone. Comm. Bogosian asked staff, bottom line, what is the maximum amount of sq. ft. of living space the applicants could have if they stayed within the blue lines. Planner Walgren said using the multi-family setback envelope and anticipating that they had a full envelope, it would be a 3,700 sq. ft., below grade basement and two stories above. Also the staff analysis interpretation was that you also end up with an awkward structure that was basically centered in the middle of the lot and would be permitted to go up to the maximum height of 30 ft. Comm. Favero wants to say for the record, he thinks the Commission is chasing minutes of issues of bureaucratic caliber and we are missing the larger point. M/S Favero/Durket motion that the plan be approved with option #l. Comm. Tucker asked that the mover spell out the Variance findings that he is making. City Attorney clarified that unless we make the findings tonight, the motion would be to direct staff to prepare a resolution, using the Commission's directions to draft the findings for approval. Comm. Durket said that he could make the findings for the Variance. In response to Comm. Tucker's asking the mover to spell out the variance findings that he is making he then read the Variance findings contained in the City Code. Chair Moran asked the City Attorney to comment on the suitably of those findings. Comm. Favero said if Chair Moran is asking her to pass judgement on the quality of his findings, he objects to that. Chair Moran said no, her concern is that the Commission has to give a reason to support the findings, rather that just read them. If 18 we are to pass t~s tonight and we direct ~aff to prepare a Resolution, then it has to be a strong one. Responding to the Chair's question the City Attorney said that just as in the design review there are the standard findings that eventually give conclusions. The findings must be supported by factual evidence, the findings that Comm. Favero read into the record are the starting point. They reflect the conclusion that the Commission comes to. The second part of the process is supporting the findings with substantial evidence from the record. Take the first finding for example that because of the special circumstances applicable to the property including several different things. The Commission must identify the special circumstances; they might be size, shape, location, etc. The second part of the findings is to specify how the applicant is deprived of privileges enjoyed by the owners of other properties. The City Attorney stated the findings are fine, but they must be supported by evidence. Chair Moran thanked the City Attorney. She said we now have a motion and second for approval of the Variance. There was no discussion and Chair Moran called for a vote. Ayes 2 (Comm Durket & Favero) Noes 4 Chair Moran said the Variance is denied, so therefore we will not go forward with the Design Review at this point. The Commission must now decide where they want to go from here. Chair Moran stated that a compromise is what Mr. Eisner suggested--that we look at alternative #2. Comm. Favero said you can't do that now. Comm. Durket agreed that it can't be done now because we have turned down the Variance. The Interim Planning Director said that is the only option that is available to you at this point, because you denied the Variance which eliminates option one and two, so the next issue would be to continue the matter to a certain time. Chair Moran said she thinks the Commission should consider Option #2, even though technically we cannot. Comm. Tucker said Option #2 is the map, that is not what is before us. In other words they could come within the setbacks that are required and still be within the R-1-10. The configuration is drawn with a Variance in mind, or are you just saying that is the 2,400 sq. ft. plopped down. The Interim Planning Director said that was the point, it was drawn with a variance in mind. Option #2, had you not denied the Variance, gave the applicants the opportunity to address the R-1 standards, and hopefully to address the R-M standards, you left them the option of having some flexibility in having a variance, but to a lesser degree. Having .taken the action that you have taken, what you are doing is directing them to continue the design review and come back to you with a design that meets the setback zone for the R-M zone and that is the option that is available to you. 19' Comm. Tucker said~he was voting for denial~f the application before the Commission this evening. She said it bothers her that the Commission cannot go forward and look at an R-1-10, direct the applicant to build to those standards without a variance. Planner Walgren said that in affect, we are denying this Variance application, if it is not possible to take a revote to keep the Variance open for flexibility purposes the applicant would have to technically make a new application to consider a variation or modify the plan. Comm. Forbes said suppose they came back two weeks from now with a 3" difference in variance--tonight we did not deny with prejudice so why couldn't they come back .again with a difference in the variance. Planner Walgren said they would have to make a reapplication and be re-noticed to start the process all over again. The City Attorney suggested a motion to deny the Variance without prejudice, but leaving open the possibility for the applicant to come back or continue the application and let the applicant revise the project. M/S Tucker/Moran Move for a revote. Comm. Tucker said this application does warrant a Study Session. Comm. Forbes agrees with this thought. Comm. Tucker said to look at the R-M and R-1-10. Comm. Bogosian repeated that he cannot make the findings for the Variance and will therefore not be able to vote for any kind of a Variance at all. City Attorney suggested the Commission can go forward with a motion to reconsider. The main motion will then be back before the Commission, and can then be withdrawn. Then the Commission can consider a new motion. City Attorney suggested the new motion could continue this item and direct the applicant to come back. Chair called for the motion to be withdrawn. Ayes 5 Noes 1 At this point there is no motion on the floor. Mrs. Marchetti asked to have the Public Hearing reopened. Chair Moran said the Public Hearing is closed, if Mrs. Marchetti wishes to force a vote, then it can be reopened. Chair Moran said her sense is that it would be a "no" vote, but you do have the right to appeal this to the City Council. Comm. Forbes made a motion to let the applicant tell the Commission what they want. Comm. Favero seconds. Ayes 6 Chair Moran stated the Public Hearing is now reopened at 10:37 p.m. 20 Mrs. Marchetti sa~ she is not sure she is'~understanding the Exhibit, the yellow outline is the nonconforming R-1 setback, what we are proposing is the pink line is what we are proposing, so we are coming forward within 15 ft. of the street. Normally it would be 20 ft. in an R-1 zone lot. We moved the R-1 forward 10 ft. There is a right-of-way on 6th St. which is about 12 ft., so really the house is 27 ft. from the street. Mr. Roger Griffin, speaking for the applicants, trying to get clarification. If we were to go with R-1 standards we could come back to a continued Public Hearing and not have to wait for a Study Session. The Interim Planning Director said there is another set of lines on the drawing that you have not considered. It seems to him that if they match the R-M standard the blue line standard on the side, but had the flexibility of going farther back, the depth of the lot to the yellow line, granted it would still require a variance, but that would give them the flexibility of design, the space that they are looking for and it would reduce the degree of the variance that they originally asked for. Comm. Bogosian said we are talking about a variance, but we are talking also of design review. It is important to remember that as a Commission we are charged to do two separate actions on this project. Mrs. Marchetti said all the neighbors were in favor of this application. Chair Moran called for a motion on the Variance. Comm. Favero said he would like to reenact his original motion. M/S Favero/Durket to approve V-91-016. The City Attorney said the motion would be to direct staff to prepare a Resolution containing findings to approve the Variance. Comm. Forbes will not support this Variance. Chair Moran asked for a vote on the motion. Ayes 2 (Favero and Durket) Noes 4 M/S to deny DR-91-061 Tucker/Forbes Several Comm. gave their views as to why they will or will not support this motion. Very hard to distinguish the speakers. Ayes 4 Noes 2 Chair Moran told the applicants that this is a denial of the project and the applicants can appeal this decision to the City Council within 15 days. The Interim Planning Director left due to illness. 21 10. DR-91-059 - .Thomas; 14000 Pike Road,~equest for design '= review approval to remove an existing residence, two carports and an accessory structure and construct a new, 5,919 sq. ft. two-story residence, per Chapter 15 of the City Code. A rear yard pool and pool house are also proposed. The site is 1.8 acres and is within the Northwestern Hillside Residential (NHR) zone district. Planner Walgren summarized the staff report. Staff finds that all of the findings can be made to recommend approval of this application. Chair Moran opened the Public Hearing at 10:53 p.m. Mr. Edwin O'Farrel, he is the project architects for the applicants. He said earlier in the evening, they presented a petition from the neighbors in support of the project. Chair Moran called for a motion to close the Public Hearing M/S Durket/Bogosian Ayes 5 (Comm. Favero was not present for the vote The Public Hearing was closed. Comm. Durket says that although this is well screened he cannot make the compatibility for the massiveness of this house. If the height were reduced by 2 ft. or 3 ft. he said he could support it. Comm. Tucker asked staff what the heights of the homes in that area are? Planner Walgren said they vary greatly. In answer to a question from Chair Moran, Planner Walgren said staff did not discuss with the applicant lowering the house in the grade. Comm. Bogosian agreed with staff that this is well screened and he will support this application. M/S Tucker/Forbes Moved for approval of DR-91-059 per the staff report. Ayes 5 Noes 1 Chair Moran said that is approval of your application, there are 15 days in which the approval may be appealed to the City Council. ------------------------------------------------------------- 11. UP-91-010 - Campf; 18661 McFarland, request for use permit approval to locate a 448 sq. ft. detached garage within the rear yard setback of a 10,000 sq. ft. parcel per Chapter 15 of the City Code. The property is located within the R-1-10,000 zone district. 22 Planner Wal ren su «arized the staff re ort. S~ff is recommendin g P g {- approval of the Use Permit. Chair Moran opened the Public Hearing at 11:00 p.m. Mr. J. Campf, the applicant spoke in support of his application. M/S Durket/Tucker Close the Public Hearing. M/S Forbes/Tucker Approve UP-91-010. Ayes 6 Chair Moran said that is approval of your application, there are 15 days in which the approval may be appealed to the City Council. ------------------------------------------------------------- 12. V-91-014 - Persico; 14761 Bohlman Road, request for variance approval to extend an existing non- conforming building line within the front yard setback of a 13,400 sq. ft. parcel per Chapter 15 of the City Code. The request also involves the construction of a 6 ft. high fence within the exterior street side yard setbacks where a 3 ft. high fence is permitted. The property is located within the R-1-10,000 zone district. M/S Durket/Tucker Move to continue V-01-014 Ayes 5 Abstain (Bogosian) ------------------------------------------------------------- 13. CITY OF SARATOGA - AMENDMENT TO SECTION 15-80.080 (d)(3) and (e)(2) and 15-06.670(b) SATELLITE DISH ANTENNAE. Amending the zoning ordinance to limit the location and height of satellite dish antennae. Planner Walgren explained he was not prepared to give the next three reports but he said we will see if we can get through these in the Planning Director's absence. He said the first item is amending the Zoning Ordinance to facilitate satellite dish applications. The new Ordinance just takes the accessory structure Ordinance that is currently in the Code and applies it to satellite dish antennae as well. So the satellite dish antennae can not be located within a front or side setback, can be located within a rear setback, but only if it is a certain low height the further it comes from the rear setback it is allowed to go up to maximum height ,of 12 ft. if it entirely out of all setbacks. Staff is recommending that these changes be adopted. In answer to a question from Comm. Bogosian, Planner Walgren said to have the maximum of 12 ft. it has to be out of all the setbacks, so 30 ft. from the front, 15 ft. to 20 ft. from the side, 35 ft. to 50 ft. from the rear. In no event would it be permitted to go closer than 6 ft. tall from the property line. Chair Moran said that is not the way she reads the proposal. Comm. Bogosian said he reads it to be l ft. per each additional ft. of 23 setback. So if its a 7 ft. dish you get 7 ~ in height and so '~° on. Essentially you could get a 10 ft. high satellite 10 ft. from the property line. Other Comm. agree. There was discussion about this. Planner Walgren said he was not intending to give this, but the discussion he had with the Planning Director was the way he described it. This has obviously been modified a little bit. Comm. Forbes asked about colors. Planner Walgren said design and color was not discussed. Screening is not in this proposal. One thing that is that it would be administratively public noticed to all of the adjacent property owners. Comm. Favero said it is not really clear as to what the Commission is talking about. Comm. Bogosian said he would like to have screening spelled out. Chair Moran opened the Public Hearing at 11:10 p.m. No speakers. Public Hearing closed at 11:10 p.m. Planner Walgren explained some background--the accessory structure Ordinance goes very far back and allows structures basically less that 250 sq. ft. if they fall within the guidelines, to go through the administrative review. Some of these have been appealed and have come to the Planning Commission. In answer to a question from Comm. Bogosian the City Attorney said we have to be reasonable given current technology. Planner Walgren quoted the opening paragraph to this section. There was discussion about the setbacks and height. M/S Bogosian/Forbes to reject the proposal with the direction to staff to prepare some alternatives. Ayes 6 ------------------------------------------------------------- 14. CITY OF SARATOGA - AMENDMENT TO SECTION 15-35.040 - DESIGN STANDARDS FOR OFF-STREET PARKING FACILITIES. Deletion of Sub-Sections (a) through (i) and authorizing the City Engineer to prepare design standards for off-street parking facilities to be approved by resolution of the City Council. Planner Walgren gave a brief summary of this proposal. Comm. Tucker suggested the City Engineer come up with a proposal. Chair Moran opened the Public Hearing at 11:20 p.m. M/S Favero/Forbes move to close Public Hearing. 24 M 5 Tucker Favero~Move to continue this item to Januar 22 / / Y R~ meeting and direct staff to ask the City Engineer to come up with a proposal. Comm. Bogosian added if there are any Federal regulations they should be made aware of. Comm. Tucker wished to add where this proposal came from and why we are doing this. Comm. Favero and Chair Moran agreed with Comm. Tucker. Chair Moran said she would hope we do not reduce the size of the parking space, and there should be one size for cars. Ayes 6 ------------------------------------------------------------- 15. CITY OF SARATOGA - MISCELLANEOUS AMENDMENTS TO ORDINANCE 72- 99, AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF SARATOGA AMENDING VARIOUS SECTIONS OF THE ZONING REGULATIONS CONCERNING SUBDIVISIONS OF SITES, DESIGN REVIEW, IMPERVIOUS COVERAGE, SETBACKS AND GRADING IN THE RESIDENTIAL AND AGRICULTURAL DISTRICTS. Administrative amendments and clarifications to the Design Standards. M/S Durket/Tucker made a motion to continue this item to January 22, the next available meeting. Ayes 5 Noes 1 Comm. Tucker has some questions that should be answered next time this is discussion. Definition of what minor means and she needs an explanation of the paragraph on page 2. She suggests the Commission bring their Ordinance books. Chair Moran had some questions as to why we are fixing this now when it is not broken. Comm. Bogosian asked since the Public Hearing was not open then when it comes back there will still be a public hearing. ------------------------------------------------------------- ** The Planning Commission will not open any new public hearing items after 11:30 p.m. Those items not heard will be placed as early as possible on the next public hearing agenda. DIRECTOR'S ITEMS 1. Special Notice to Neighborhoods Planner Walgren said this is an informational item. The City Manager came to the Planning Director and said that this is one of recommendations that came out of the Track 7770 report. COMMISSION ITEMS Comm. Bogosian would like to be provided with the major and minor ridge line in the form of a map. Planner Walgren said the major ridge line is map the size of two of the panels behind the Commission. Staff could probably be superimposed, it wouldn't be 25 as accurate and th~inor rid a is done case b ~ase so those could ~, g Y be provided, attempt to put it into the packet. Comm. Favero congratulated Comm. Moran and Comm. Caldwell on being reappointed. Written None Oral City Council - The meeting was adjourned at 11:35 p.m. 26