Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout11-24-1992 Planning Commission Minutes'! ~~~ ~~ CITY OF SARATOGA PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES November 24, 1992 - 7:30 p.m. City Council Chambers, .13777 Fruitvale Ave. Regular Meeting The meeting was called to order at 7:30 p.m. by Chairperson Caldwell. ROLL CALL Present: Chairperson Caldwell, Commissioners Forbes, Bogosian, Murakami, Moran and Asfour Absent: Commissioner Favero PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE MINUTES FORBES/ASFOUR MOVED TO APPROVE THE MINUTES OF NOVEMBER 10, 1992. PASSED 5-0. (MORAN ABSTAINED). ORAL COMMUNICATIONS None REPORT OF POSTING AGENDA Pursuant to Government Code 54954.2, the agenda for this meeting was properly posted on November 20, 1992. TECHNICAL CORRECTIONS TO PACKET None PUBLIC HEARINGS 1. AZO-92-006 - An ordinance of the City of Saratoga repealing Section 15- 45.090(b) and Section 15-46.050(b) and adding Section 15- 45.090(b) and Section 15-46.050(b) to the Code of the City of Saratoga, relating to extensions of time for design review and site modification approvals. (cont. from 11/10/92 to have the City Attorney present to answer questions raised re: possible conflict of interest issues). --------------------------------------------------------------------------- The Report dated November 24, 1992 was presented to the Planning Commission by Planning Director Curtis. He answered questions from the Commission with regard to the proposed code change and outlined various options available ' Planning Commission Mi~s Meeting of Page 2 to the Planning Commission with regard to "grandfathering" or exempting projects which currently have design review approval.. The City Attorney addressed the issue of potential conflicts of interest. He explained that Commissioner Favero would not be in conflict of interest since the project planned for the old Paul Mason Winery site, which is in close proximity to Commissioner Favero's residence, is governed by another section of the code that is not included with this proposed code change. The City Attorney also stated that there exists no conflict of interest with regard to Commissioner Murakami and a project listed in the staff report. It was, however, determined by the City Attorney, that due to Commissioner Bogosian's residence being within 300 feet of a project listed in the staff report, Commissioner Bogosian may participate in the deliberation and voting with regard to the ordinance itself, but should not participate in the discussion and voting on the issue of grandfathering/exempting projects with design approvals. City Attorney suggested the deliberation voting be split in two parts -one discussion and motion regarding the ordinance itself and a second discussion and motion to amend the ordinance with regard to grandfathering. Chairperson Caldwell expressed her willingness to split the deliberations on the item as suggested by the City Attorney. Commissioner Bogosian stated that he would participate in the discussion and the voting with regard to the ordinance, but would abstain from deliberations and voting on the issue of grandfathering the projects with design approvals. Commissioner Forbes and Asfour expressed their opposition to Commissioner Bogosian participating in discussion and voting on the ordinance. They stated that they believed that the two issues go "hand in hand" and should not be separated. Chairperson Caldwell advised Commissioner Bogosian that it is his decision to determine whether he should remove himself from deliberations due to a conflict of interest. Commissioner Bogosian took this under advisement. Chairperson Caldwell opened the public hearing at 8:00 p.m. Dick Oliver, Dividend Development, noted should the code be changed as proposed, that any senior facility which may be proposed, in the future, at a site, other than one which is zoned for senior housing, would not be able to meet the two year design review approval time line. He stated that the change in the code it would discourage many developers of large projects such as senior housing and etc. from considering Saratoga as a possible construction site. He explained the various processes that developers of large projects must go through before even breaking ground for their projects. He stated that the two-year design review approval would not provide developers with sufficient time. Bob Sheppard, 20665 Lomita Avenue, spoke in opposition to the proposed ordinance. He stated that the option to grant an automatic one extension to all projects which Planning Commission Mi~s Meeting of Page 3 currently hold design review approval would not allow enough time. He spoke in favor of fully grandfathering the entire list of projects. Elizabeth van der Toorren, 14555 Horseshoe Drive, Member of the Board of Directors for Saratoga Country Club, spoke in favor of grandfathering the list of projects and allowing them to conform to the current extension regulations. John DiManto, 1210 Coleman Avenue, Santa Clara, noted that many projects incur unforeseeable problems. He stated that the two year limit placed on design review approval would not allow enough time for many projects to begin construction. He suggested the Commission consider a utility moratorium exception beyond two years to allow the full three one-year extensions. He reported his experience of time delays stemming from the process of getting a water hooked up. He spoke in favor of the Commission recommending that the projects currently holding design review approvals be granted an automatic one year extension with a provision allowing for additional extensions. Mary Dutro, 20825 Pamela Way, spoke in favor of the exploration of additional options which would allow for projects which currently hold design review approval to be granted additional time extensions. She stated that the two year period, which approval are valid for, is not always enough time for the construction to commence. Mr. Tager, 13983 Pike Road, stated that he felt the applicants needed to be protected and the rules should not be changed in "mid-game". He stated that the people should be made aware of the change, should it be adopted, in ample time to prepare. He spoke in favor of grandfathering the existing ,projects which hold design review approval. He indicated that a change in the length of time for which approvals are valid and/or a change in the number of allowable extensions would adversely affect the people. Betty McKenzie, 14349 Saratoga Avenue, concurred with the comments made by Mr. Tager. Thomas Klein, 20824 Hillmoor Drive, explained that his project had received design approval, but the approval expires next year. He stated that should the proposed change be adopted with the absence of a provision to grandfather the projects with existing approvals, there would not be ample time for him to decide what to do regarding to his pending project. He also stated that he had not been notified of the proposed code change. Planning Director Curtis noted letters had been received by Wayne Whittner, Jr., Mr and Mrs. Byrne, and Mr. Tsang. Planning Director Curtis revealed that all three letters expressed opposition to the repealing of the three one-year time extension option. ASFOUR/MURAKAMI MOVED TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING AT 8:16 P.M. PASSED 6-0. Planning Commission M'~s Meeting of Page 4 Commissioner Bogosian stated that in the interest of expediting the matter, he would be stepping down from the digs and would abstain from voting on the item. Commissioner Moran inquired if the Planning Commission, when reviewing designs applications seeking design review approval, could add a provision to the individual application to allow for additional time extension considerations. Planner Curtis explained that granting individual projects provisions for extension consideration would be inappropriate. Commissioner Forbes inquired whether a design review approval would stand (remain valid) if the site become hazardous. The City Attorney explained that the City could intervene and stop construction on a site that is obviously hazardous. Chairperson Caldwell inquired as to staffls recommendation regarding a utility moratorium exception as brought up by Mr. Dimanto. Planner Walgren explained that the example cited by Mr. Dimanto relative to the installation of utilities is a requirement of tentative map approval which is still permitted the full five year time line. He stated that the utility moratorium does not affect design review because design review typically does not take place until the final map is approved. Planning Director Curtis stated that should a utility moratorium problem arise, the ordinance could then be amended. Planning Director Curtis explained to the Commission that the following options were available to them with regard to the issue of grandfathering the projects which currently hold design approval: 1) Grandfather all existing design review approvals (to conform to current code - 2 year design review approval with eligibility for three one-year time extensions); or 2) Granting aone-year only extension to all listed projects; or 3) Grant a one year extension to those projects appearing on the second list and the projects on the other two lists could maintain the existing time limit and extension provisions. Chairperson Caldwell stated that the ordinance has merit and she supports recommending that a blanket grandfathering (2 year approval with the eligibility of three one-year time extensions per original approval) be applied to the projects currently holding design review approvals. Commissioner Asfour concurred with Chairperson Caldwell. Commissioner Forbes question whether the code should be changed at all. He stated that he felt the two year time limit on design review approvals inflicted an undue hardship on applicants, property owners and developers. Planning Commission Mi~s Meeting of Page 5 Planning Director Curtis explained the proposed code change arose from the direction of the Planning Commission and the City Council. He noted that a number of extension applications were being presented which the design review standards had changed since the original approval. In these cases, the Commission could not consider the design's variations from or non-compliance of the current design standards. Therefore, many approval extensions were being granted for designs that were no longer in conformance with the present design standards. He explained that with the repealing of the code section which allows for extensions, design review approvals would be valid for up to two years and any application which expires would trigger a new design review through which current standards could be applied to the project. Commissioner Moran recommended that the City Council's review of this item be well noticed. She suggested that the fee for design review approval renewal reactivation be adjusted to equal the design review extension application fee since original research done on the project can be reused. Commissioner Murakami expressed support for the grandfathering of projects which currently hold design review approvals. CALDWELL/ASFOUR MOVED TO RECOMMEND TO THE CITY COUNCIL APPROVAL OF AZO-92-006 WITH THE PROVISION THAT ALL PENDING DESIGN REVIEW APPLICATIONS BE FULLY GRANDFATHERED (2 YEAR DESIGN REVIEW APPROVAL WITH ELIGIBILITY FOR THREE (3) ONE (1) YEAR EXTENSIONS AS ORIGINALLY APPROVED; AND THAT TENTATIVE MAP DESIGN REVIEW, JOINT TENTATIVE MAP DESIGN REVIEW AND/OR CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT PROJECTS BE EXEMPT. THE PLANNING COMMISSION ALSO RECOMMENDS THE CITY COUNCIL CONSIDER ADJUSTMENTS TO THE FEE SCHEDULE AS SUGGESTED BY COMMISSIONER MORAN. PASSED 5-1 (FORBES OPPOSED). Commissioner Bogosian re joined his fellow Commissioners at the dias. 2. V-92-016 - Gurney; 18241 Purdue Dr., variance request to allow a 453 sq. ft. addition to an existing 1,914 sq. ft. residence. The addition would extend an existing non-conforming building line that is set back eight feet from the exterior side property line where 15 feet is required per Chapter 15 of the City Code. The parcel is approximately 8,100 sq. ft. and is located within an R-1-10,000 zone district. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Planner Walgren presented the Report dated November 24, 1992, to the Commission. At 8:45 p.m., Chairperson Caldwell opened the public hearing. Richard Gurney,18241 Purdue Drive, applicant, spoke in favor of the application and the recommendations made by staff outlined; in the Staff Report. Planning Commission Mi~s Meeting of Page 6 MORAN/FORBES MOVED TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING AT 8:46 P.M. PASSED 6- 0. Commissioner Moran stated she could support the variance. She explained the original construction was done using non-conforming setbacks and to now require strict enforcement of the regulations would deprive the applicant of privileges enjoyed by other property owners in the vicinity. Commissioner Bogosian concurred with Commissioner Moran's comments and added that the proposed construction would be a fine addition to the neighborhood. MORAN/FORBES MOVED TO APPROVE V-92-016. PASSED 6-0. At 8:47 p.m., the meeting recessed and was reconvened at 9:00 p.m. 3. DR-92-033 - Farsio; 14930 Vmtnez Ct., request for design review approval to construct a 2,148 sq. ft, guest house detached from an existing 4, 768 sq. ft. single-family residence per Chapter 15 of the City Code. The parcel is 3.45 acres and is located within the NHR zone district. Planner Walgren presented the Report dated November 24, 1992 and answered questions with regard to the proposed project. At 9:14 p.m., the public hearing was opened. Mr. Farsio, 14930 Vinter Court, applicant, spoke in favor of the application stating that the proposed structure does not conflict with the Measure A settlement and meets all zoning requirements. He also that no size limit for this type of structure is specified in the code. He explained that due to the constraints of the parcel, re-location of the structure to any portion of the site, other than that proposed, would be difficult. Mr. Chang, 14900 Vinter Court, spoke in opposition to the application stating that construction of the structure would violate the stipulation of the settlement. He suggested that the structure be placed on lot 27, closer to the main structure, instead of on lot 28. Dora Grens, 13451, Old Oak Way, expressed opposition to the proposed structure and stated that its size, as proposed, is inappropriate and would be perceived as a separate, independent residence. MORAN/BOGOSIAN MOVED TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING AT 9:25 P.M. PASSED 6-0. Planning Commission M~es Meeting of Page 7 Discussion commenced regarding the applicant's appearance before the City Council in regard to his appeal of the Planning Commission's denial of the application. Planner Walgren explained that at the time of the City Council's consideration of the appeal, Mr. Farsio presented revised plans. The City Council upheld the Planning Commission's denial of the application and the applicant was instructed, by the City Council, to submit the revised plans to the Planning Commission. Commissioner Asfour indicated that he was present at this City Council meeting and could answer questions regarding the action taken at the meeting with regard to Mr. Farsio's application. In response to Commissioner Forbes' question, Planner Walgren stated that the City Council gave no direction to Mr. Farsio with regard to re-designing the proposed structure. Commissioner Bogosian stated that he had no problem with the size of the structure, but in consideration of the Measure A settlement could not support the application due to the proposed location. He suggested the structure be relocated closer to the main house. Commissioner Asfour stated he believed the proposed guest house would violate the spirit of the settlement. He indicated the size of the guest house was excessive and located too far from the main structure. Commissioner Moran supported the recommendation made by staff to decrease the size of the proposed structure and relocated it closer to the main house. Commissioner Murakami also supported a reduction in the size of the proposed guest house and relocation closer to the main house. He stated the structure, as proposed, would appear to be a separate parcel of land with asingle-family residence. Chairperson Caldwell noted that the size of the proposed structure in the original application was 73% of the size of the main structure. Staff pointed out that the proposed guest house is actually 45% of the size of the main structure. Commissioner Bogosian stated he could support the size of the proposed structure, but not in the proposed location. Commissioner Forbes indicated he could support a 1,400 - 1,500 square foot structure if it were closer to the main structure. Chairperson Caldwell stated that she could riot support any structure in the extra (paired) parcel because it would violate the intent of the agreement which was designed to limit density. She noted that the proposed size and location gives the appearance of a separate Planning Commission Mi.~s Meeting of • Page 8 parcel and residence. She expressed support for size reduction and relocation of the structure. Commissioner Bogosian inquired whether a second story could be added to the main structure. He expressed his opinion that to require the applicant to reduce the size of the guest house would place an undue hardship on him. Chairperson Caldwell stated that in this case she would prefer a second story addition instead of the accessory structure as proposed. FORBES/BOGOSIAN MOVED TO RE-OPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING AT 9:43 P.M., TO ALLOW THE APPLICANT TO ADDRESS THE COMMISSION. PASSED 6-0. Mr. Farsio, applicant, noted that the code restricts the proposed structure's height to 12 feet and a title restriction prohibits the parcel from being subdivided. Therefore, the structure could not become a main residence/living unit. He stated he could reduce the size, but could not re-locate the structure closer to the main house. MORAN/ASFOUR MOVED TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING AT 9:47 P.M. PASSED 6- 0. Per the request of the Commission, the City Attorney explained the history of the joining of the parcels and the settlement agreement. Commissioner Asfour questioned the City Attorney as to whether a possibility existed for the lot to be split in the future. City Attorney stated that it was possible, but highly unlikely. Commissioner Moran stated that she would like would like the applicant to reconsider his preference not to relocate the structure. BOGOSIAN/ASFOUR MOVED TO DENY 92-033 WITHOUT PREJUDICE. Chairperson Caldwell explained to the applicant the option of having the Commission act on the application, as proposed, or to continue the application to a later date to allow him (the applicant) to redesign the guest house per the suggestions made by the Planning Commissioners. The applicant indicated his preference to continue the item. BOGOSIAN/ASFOUR WITHDREW THEIR MOTION. Planning Commission M~es Meeting of Page 9 FORBES/MORAN MOVED TO CONTINUE 92-033 IN ORDER TO ALLOW TIME FOR THE APPLICANT TO REDESIGN THE STRUCTURE - SPECIFICALLY TO REDUCE IT TO A MAXIMUM OF 1,400 SQUARE FEET AND RELOCATE TT AS CLOSE AS POSSIBLE TO THE MAIN STRUCTURE. PASSED 6-0. 4. DR-92-035 - Marshall; 20100 Hill Ave., request for design V-92-014 - review approval to construct a 14 ft. tall detached studio, which exceeds the 12 ft. height limit established in the zoning ordinance. Pursuant to Chapter 15 of the City Code, variance approval is also requested to allow the detached studio, and a minor addition to the main residence, to encroach into a required exterior side yard setback. The subject property is approximately 32,653 sq. ft. in area and is located within an R-1-20,000 zone district. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Planner Walgren presented the report dated November 24, 1992 and answered questions with regard to the application. The public hearing was opened at 9:55 p.m. Bob Rockwood, 14573 Big Basin Way, project designer, spoke in favor of the application. He explained the proposed location of the structure is the least impactful location and the proposed 14-foot height is necessary to accommodate a window needed for light. He stated that the property owner is an artist and abundant light is essential to his work. Mr. Rockwood also stated that the proposed location was chosen in order to preserve an existing fig tree. MORAN/ASFOUR MOVED TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING AT 9:58 P.M. PASSED 6- 0. MORAN/MURAKAMI MOVED TO APPROVE V-92-014. PASSED 6-0. MORAN/FORBES MOVED TO APPROVE DR-92-035. PASSED 6-0. 5. Appeal of - Sinsley; 15229 Quito Rd., applicant is appeal- Administrative ling a decision of the Heritage Preservation Decision Commission regarding final placement of a historic adobe wall within an open space easement as required by subdivision condition per Chapter 14 of the City Code. Planning Director Curtis presented the Report dated November 24, 1992 and answered questions with regard to the appeal. In response to Commissioner Bogosian's question regarding the use and limitations of an easement, the City Attorney explained that uses and limitations depend on the type of easement that exists. He stated there are many different types of ' Planning Commission Mi~s Meeting of November 24,1992 Page 10 ' easements such as access easements which grant certain parties access, or utility easements which grant use of the land for utility wires/cables and etc. He stated that generally an easement prohibits the property owner to do any thing or construct anything that would result in obstruction of the use of the easement by the owner of the easement right. Planning Director Curtis further explained that the subject easement specifies Mr. Sinsley's right to plant and maintain landscaping in the easement and that the owner of Parcel A has the responsibility to maintain the wall. At 10:05 p.m., Chairperson Caldwell opened the public hearing. Mrs. Sinsley, 12280 Farr Ranch Road, appellant, presented a written statement and a diagram (of a new wall location proposal which had been presented to the Heritage Preservation Commission) to the Planning Commission. She gave a brief history of the adobe wall, discussed the requirement to relocate the wall, and the disagreement over the proposed new location of the wall. She stated that the decision reached by the Heritage Preservation Commission regarding the location of the wall would result in a portion of her land being on the Boyles' side of the wall thus denying the Sinsle~s the right to use and enjoy that portion of their land. She noted 33% of her (Sinsley) land currently exists on the opposite side of the wall. She stated that Mr. Boyle was in favor of the Heritage Preservation Committee's decision because it would create the illusion that Mr. Boyles' property is larger than it actually is. She responded to the letters included in the packet by stating that she and Mr. Sinsley had fulfilled the landscape requirements specified in the conditions of the subdivision. Commissioner Asfour asked Mrs. Sinsley if they had changed their mind regarding the agreed upon location of the wall after signing the agreement. Mrs. Sinsley explained that at the time they felt they had no other option and were unaware of the process to present the issue to other commissions for a more amiable solution. She expressed her concern that the Boyles would utilize, landscape and want access to the Sinsley's strip of land on the Boyles' side of the relocated wall. In response to the Commission's inquiry regarding the diagram Mrs. Sinsley distributed, Mrs. Sinsley stated that the diagram presents asolution -agreeable to the Sinsley's, but that Mr. Boyle would only agree to the proposed diagram if the Sinsle~s would grant the Boyles' certain access and landscaping rights to the strip of land on the Boyle side of the wall. She indicated an unwillingness to grant these rights to Mr. Boyle. Mr. Sinsley, 12280 Farr Ranch Road, appellant, concurred with the statement made by Mrs. Sinsley and answered questions from the Commission. He also noted that should the decision of the Heritage Preservation Committee be upheld, 21 % of his property would be on the other side of the wall. Planning Commission Mi~s Meeting of November 24, 1992 Page 11 Larry Fine, Saratoga Heritage Preservation Commissioner, reported on the Heritage Preservation Committee's deliberation on the issue. He stated that the object of the Heritage Preservation Committee was to preserve the open space easement, protect the historic wall, protect existing trees, maintain the existing ambiance of the property and consider the aesthetics of the historic wall, but not to involve themselves in the legalities of property rights. He further explained that at the last meeting the two parties had an approximate agreement, but did not want to record the agreement. Mr. Fine also answered questions from the Planning Commission with regard to the Heritage Preservation Commissions consideration of the item.. Planning Director Curtis noted 19% of the Sinsley's lot fell within the easement, not the 21% stated by Mr. Sinsley. Daryl Boyle, 15231 Quito Road, urged the Planning Commission to uphold the decision of the Heritage Preservation Commission with regard to the location of the adobe wall. He stated the easement was specified in the subdivision conditions for the purpose of providing addition space on one side and in which to place the adobe wall in order to preserve the original integrity of Casa Tierra. Mr. Sinsley stated that creation of the easement was not for the purpose of re-location of the adobe wall. He requested either the City Attorney or staff to verify his comment. AT 9:43 P.M., MORAN/ASFOUR MOVED TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING. PASSED 6-0. City Attorney noted that the first easement was created to provide an open space buffer for Parcel A and the second easement was intended to allow the owners of Parcel A access for maintenance of the wall. He also noted, in response to Commissioner Bogosian's question, that no designation for the location of the wall was specified. Commissioner Moran expressed support for the decision made by the Heritage Preservation Committee. Chairperson Caldwell noted the Planning Commission had delegated the decision to the Heritage Preservation Committee and that a decision had been reached which she supports. Commissioner Bogosian stated he felt the wall had been placed in the easement because of a default situation. The decision of the wall's location was then passed on by the Planning Commission to the Heritage Preservation Commission which came to a decision which is unsatisfactory to the Sinsleys and does not deal with the issues of both parties. He stated he felt that the Planning Commission had a responsibility to consider other alternatives and come to a decision. Planning Commission M~es a Meeting of November 24, 1992 Page 12 Commissioner Forbes noted that the Planning Commission's responsibility is to either approve of deny the decision of the Heritage Preservation Commission, not come up with other options for placement of the wall. Commissioner Moran stated she is confident the Heritage Preservation Commission's decision deals with the issues of both parties. Planning Director Curtis noted the decision made by the Heritage preservation Committee had to be based on certain criteria. FORBES/MORAN MOVED TO RE-OPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING AT 10:55 P.M. Chairperson Caldwell stated that she disagreed with the comment made by Commissioner Bogosian. She stated it was her opinion that the Heritage Preservation Commission did take into consideration both parties and thus came to their decision. She expressed support for upholding the Heritage Preservation Commission's decision. Commissioner Murakami stated that he appreciated the work done by the Heritage Commission, but that he notices that a large proportion of the wall is being torn down and moved and would deprive the Sinsleys of a good portion of their land. He stated that he could support moving the wall in order to give the Sinsleys more use of their property. THE MOTION PASSED 6-0. Mr. Boyle stated that the proposal, as depicted on the diagram submitted by the Sinsleys, was presented and reviewed by the Heritage Preservation Commission. He stated that he felt the Heritage Preservation Commission carefully considered the contours of the land, visited the site, worked to preserve the original character of the site, contacted the original designer of the wall and then came to the current decision. Mr. Boyle stated he was not interested in utilizing the easement, but only interested in being able to walk around his house without being accused of trespassing. He noted that the cost of relocating the wall was Mr. Sinsleys responsibility and he (Boyle) had offer to pay for half of the relocation cost if an acceptable agreement on the placement of the wall had been reached. Mr. Boyle indicated that he was not willing to pay for the relocation of the wall under the conditions as proposed by the Sinsleys. City Attorney responded to Commissioner Bogosian's request for clarification as to the party responsible for the relocation costs by explaining that this was not specified in the subdivision conditions. In his judgement, the City Attorney, concluded that the owner of Parcel B, Mr. Sinsley, would be responsible for the cost of relocating the wall. MORAN/BOGOSIAN MOVED TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING AT 11:05 P.M. PASSED 6-0. ' Planning Commission M~es • Meeting of November 24, 1992 Page 13 FORBES/MORAN MOVED TO UPHOLD THE DECISION OF THE HERITAGE PRESERVATION COMMISSION AND ADOPT RESOLUTION HPC-92-1. PASSED 4-2 (BOGOSIAN AND MURAKAMI OPPOSED). DIRECTOR'S ITEMS 1. Progress Report on Paul Masson Demolition The Commission indicated acceptance of the report. COMMISSION ITEMS Planning Director Curtis mentioned the following: Planning Commission Christmas party on December 11 -RSVP to Diane in the Planning Department No Planning Commission Meeting on December 23. Planning Commission/City Council Joint Worksession on December 8 -Submit agenda items to Planning Director Curtis. Planning Director Curtis stated that a report on both the State's response to the Housing Element and the Residential Open Space Zoning District Boundaries would be given at the December 1 meeting. Chairperson Caldwell noted that Commissioner Asfour had given notice of his absence from the December 8 joint worksession and the December 9 Planning Commission meeting. Commissioner Forbes requested a definition of Commercial Construction and Residential Construction and inquired about the time restrictions placed on the different types of construction. Chairperson Caldwell asked under which category, and why, senior housing falls. It was agreed that the Building Official would be contacted and an explanation would be given at the next worksession. Commissioner Moran suggested consideration be given at the joint worksession of December 8 for establishing a City Structure Design Review Process. Planner Walgren presented a material board for changes to the Emami project at 20728 Wardell Road. He explained the applicants propose a darker tone for the exterior color of the house and composition roofing opposed to the originally approved wood shake roofing. ' • The Commission indicat~ceptance of these changes. , . Planning Commission Mi~s • Meeting of November 24, 1992 Page 15 COMMUNICATIONS ~A1..:++..« 1. City Council minutes - 10/31 & 11/4/92 2. Public hearing notices of upcoming items for the December 9, 1992 Planning Commission meeting. Oral City Council ADJOURNMENT At 11:20 p.m. Chairperson Caldwell adjourned the meeting to 7:30 p.m. on December 1, 1992, in the Senior Adult Day Care Center, 19655 Allendale Ave., Saratoga, CA. Andrea M. Chelemengos Minutes Clerk