Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout12-08-1993 Planning Commission Minutes:~ ~~- CITY OF SARATOGA PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES December 8, 1993 - 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 Moran. ROLL CALL Present: Chairperson Moran, Commissioners Asfour, Caldwell, Jacobs, Kaplan, Murakami and Wolfe Absent: None City Attorney Riback was not present. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE MINUTES Minutes of the meeting of November 22, 1993 Commissioner Kaplan had the following correction: Page 11, 7th paragraph (motion) should be clarified to read as follows: "KAPLAN/WOLFE MOVED TO APPROVE V-93-023 PER THE STAFF RECOMMENDATION AND WITH THE FOLLOWING MODIFICATION TO CONDITION #1 (AS SUGGESTED ABOVE) "THAT THE 1ST PANEL OF THE STREET SIDE BE REDUCED TO THE SAME LEVEL AS THE FENCE FACING THE FRONT AND THAT THE POSTS, THE 4X4S, BE REDUCED TO THE LEVEL OF THE FENCE AND NO OTHER STRUCTURE BE ADDED TO THE FENCE IN THE FUTURE." Commissioner Caldwell had the following correction: Page 1, ROLL CALL, should be corrected to reflect that Acting Chairperson Asfour, Commissioners Caldwell, Jacobs, Kaplan and Wolfe were present and Commissioners Moran and Murakami were absent. ASFOUR/CALDWELL MOVED APPROVAL OF THE NOVEMBER 22, 1993, MINUTES AS CORRECTED (ABOVE). PASSED 5-0-2 (MORAN AND MURAKAMI ABSTAINED). .- ~:. -. Planning Commission Minutes Meeting of December 8, 1993 Page 2 ORAL COMMUNICATIONS There was no one wishing to speak. REPORT OF POSTING AGENDA Pursuant to Government Code 54954.2, the agenda for this meeting was properly posted on December 3, 1993. TECHNICAL CORRECTIONS TO PACKET There were two technical corrections. Planner Walgren announced that staff had removed Item #1 from the Consent Calendar and placed it under the Public Hearing section for discussion. With regard to Item #2, Planner Walgren explained that a draft arborist report had been sent out with the packet and that the final arborist report has been distributed (this evening) to the Commissioners for reference. He noted that there were no substantive changes from the draft report to the final report. PUBLIC HEARING CONSENT CALENDAR As announced previously Item #1 was moved to the Public Hearing section for discussion. PUBLIC HEARINGS 1. DR-93-030 - Ebrahimoun; 15170 EI Camino Grande, request for Design Review approval to construct a new two-story 5,685 sq. ft. residence and a swimming pool per Chapter 15 of the City Code. The existing residence is proposed to be demolished. The subject property is approximately 51,400 sq. ft. and is located in an R-1-40,000 zone district (cont. from 11/22/93 to revise the plans and prepare and adopt an approval Resolution; application expires 3/29/94). Community Development Director Curtis explained that at the November 22, 1993, Planning Commission meeting the Commission denied the variance application (V- • • Planning Commission Minutes Meeting of December 8, 1993 Page 3 93-026) that was filed along with this design review application. He further explained that; the Commission had directed staff to prepare a Resolution for approval of the design review application with the condition that the design be modified to conform with the requirements of the code. Director Curtis explained that since that meeting, the ;applicant has decided to proceed with the plans for the larger house (for which a variance is need) and has appealed the variance denial. Director Curtis explained that the jdesign review and the variance application are essentially tied together. He explained that procedurally, because of the applicants desire to pursue approval for the ilarger house, staff recommends that the Commission adopt a resolution for denial of the design review application. Director Curtis further explained that a denial would allow the applicant to appeal the decisions made on both applications and, thus, the two applications could be kept together as a package. i Commissioner Jacobs stated that at the November 22, 1993 meeting, the Commission had approved the design review application with the condition that the plans be modified to meet the relative codes. He further explained that the applicants had expressed a desire to modify the plans to meet code so the design plans could be approved. Commissioner Jacobs stated that the Commission then re-considered the original motion to deny the design review and as a result of the applicant's testimony that they would modify the plans to eliminate the need for a variance the Commission then approved the design review. Co ~ munity Development Director Curtis stated that he understood that the application was continued to tonight s meeting where the Planning Commission would act on the resolution to approve the design review with the condition that the plans be modified to meet the code. There was discussion among the Commission and the staff with regard to the Commission's action on this item at the November 22, 1993 Planning Commission meeting. There was consensus among the Commissioners that a decision had been made at the November 22, 1993, meeting to approve the design with modifications to the plans which would eliminate the need for the variance. The commission also agreed that this action was taken per the applicant's expressed desire to modify the plans so they could be approved and so the applicants could proceed with the project. The Commissioners referred to the minutes (Specifically Pages 15, 16 and 17) of the November 22 meeting and explained that they had unanimously approved (5-0) thedesign (with the condition that the plans be modified to eliminate the need for a variance). They (the Commissioners) stated that the application had not been continued, but that staff had been directed to prepare an appropriately worded resolution to be placed on the December 8th Planning Commission Consent calendar and that it was the language of the resolution that was to be reviewed and approved -the decision to approve the design had been made on November 22, 1993. • • Planning Commission Minutes Meeting of December 8, 1993 Page 4 There was further discussion and question from the Commission with regard to procedural matters. The Commissioners maintained that at the November 22, 1993 Planning Commission meeting, the applicant had offered to modify the plans to eliminate the need for a variance, requested the Commission to re-consider the original motion to deny the design application, and urged the Commission to move for approval of the design review application with a condition that the plans be modified to meet the code. Commissioner Caldwell stated that she did not feel as if the Commission should have to reverse their decision because the applicants had since that time changed their mind about modifying the plans. She (Commissioner Caldwell) stated that the applicant could just as easily appeal the conditional approval of the design review application as they could a design review denial. Community Development Director Curtis agreed with Commissioner Caldwell with regard to the applicants' ability to appeal the design review approval. He explained the staff had misunderstood the actions that took place at the November 22, 1993 Planning Commission meeting. He noted that the date on the resolution for approval (of a 5,685 square foot house) would need to be changed to November 22, 1993 and that staff and the applicant could meet the next day to add the design review approval to the appeal. Chairperson Moran noted that she had been absent on November 22, 1993, but that her understanding of the action and interpretation of the minutes concurred with the explanation of events offered (above) by the Commissioners. She stated that she would be abstaining from voting on this matter, but that she understands that the vote would be just an affirmation of the action taken at the November 22, 1993 meeting to adopt a resolution for approval of the design fora 5,685 square foot house. At this point the applicant was allowed to address the Commission. Gene Zambetti, 14510 Big Basin Way, representing the applicant, stated that the applicants agree with Director Curtis with regard to having the Commission re-confirm approval of the smaller house plan so the applicants can have the opportunity to appeal the application to the City Council along with the variance application. Commissioner Asfour explained to Mr. Zambetti that the Planning Commission was under the understanding that it was the applicants' desire to modify the plans to eliminate the variance and that the applicants were receptive to the necessary modifications, which they offered to make, and would not pursue an appeal. He stated that if the Commission had known that the applicants intended on appealing the approval of the modified design, the Commission would not have re-considered the original motion and would have left the design denial in place. r,• ~ • Planning Commission Minutes Meeting of December 8, 1993 Page 5 Gene Zambetti stated that when he had asked for the separation, it was his understanding that the applicant was not going to appeal the decision and that construction of the house would then proceed. He thanked the staff for the amount time spent on clarification of this issue. Commissioner Wolfe commended staff for the time spent and the work done on this application and apologized for any confusion with regard to the Planning Commissions actions. Mr. Ebrahimoun, applicant, thanked the staff and the Commission for the time spent on this application and explained that after further consideration it was clear that a larger house was needed. He stated that if the Commission had no problems with the larger house then an approval should be granted tonight. Director Curtis stated that the Commission really did not need to vote on the resolution because the resolution had actually been adopted on November 22, 1993. He explained that all that was really needed was a concurrence that the resolution is correct. Commissioner Caldwell pointed out that the Council takes this type of opportunity to have another vote on the issue. Their was brief discussion with regard to whether the Commission should or should not vote again on this issue. Director Curtis stated that the Commission could take a vote that this resolution reflects the Commission's decision. ASFOUR/JACOBS MOVED TO APPROVE RESOLUTION DR-93-030. Commissioner Kaplan inquired if items/conditions 9 and 13 are the same. Planner Walgren stated that the two conditions are basically the same except that Condition 13 provides for more detail. Chairperson Moran suggested that the two Conditions be left in for now and that the duplicate condition (if it appears) could be removed from the next application. THE MOTION PASSED 5-0-2 (MORAN AND MURAKAMI ABSTAINED). • • Planning Commission Minutes Meeting of December 8, 1993 Page 6 2. DR-93-040 - Cook; 14750 Live Oak Lane, request for Design Review approval to construct a 2,206 sq. ft. one and two-story addition off the back of an existing 2,304 sq. ft. single story residence. The subject parcel is 41,019 sq. ft. in net site area and is located within an R-1- 40,000 zoning district. Planner Walgren present the Report dated December 8, 1993. He noted that a letter expressing opposition to the placement of the proposed house and compatibility concerns had been received from Mr. and Mrs. Kelly the adjoining property owners to the south of the subject property. Planner Walgren also answered questions from the Commission with regard to the proposal. AT 8:05 P.M. THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS OPENED. Mr. William Young, project designer, spoke in favor of the application and discussed such issues as setbacks, window placement, house location, and the existing vegetation. He addressed the concerns mentioned in the letter from Mr. and Mrs. Kelly and also answered questions from the Commission with regard to the project. Maury Cook, applicant, spoke in favor of the application and explained that the proposed addition meets the needs of the family, is sensitively designed (with regard to minimizing privacy impacts) and is in compliance with the City's codes. He stated that it is his intention to plant additional landscaping on the property to help further screen the addition. He urged the Commission to approve the application and also answered questions from the Commission with regard to the project. There was no one else wishing to speak. WOLFE/ASFOUR MOVED TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING AT 8:13 P.M. PASSED 7-0. Commissioner Caldwell stated that she had visited the site, but could not gain access to the back of the property. She asked for input with regard to potential privacy impacts, from the Commissioners who had gotten access to the back of the property. • • Planning Commission Minutes Meeting of December 8, 1993 Page 7 Commissioner Asfour explained that he initially had privacy concerns. He further explained that he had visited the site and noted that the wall with the most potential to impact privacy will have no windows. He stated that he no longer had concerns regarding privacy. Commissioner Wolfe noted that there was a good amount of landscaping on the property that would help to mitigate any potential privacy impacts. He also pointed out that the applicant had expressed intentions to plant additional landscaping. Chairperson Moran expressed concerns with regard to privacy impacts. She referred to the letter from Mr. and Mrs. Kelly and stated that she felt that privacy is a "hallmark" of this neighborhood. She discussed the fact that the lot is a narrow and that the side yard setback is not a large one for that neighborhood. She stated that she could not support the application. Commissioner Kaplan stated that she had visited the site and did not have any concerns with regard to privacy impacts. She stated that she felt the addition was modest and that she could support the application. Commissioner Murakami concurred with the comments made by Commissioner Kaplan. Chairperson Moran reiterated her concerns with regard to privacy. She stated that she was particularly concerned with the proposed second story deck. Commissioner Asfour pointed out that the Kelly residence and property were actually located above the applicants' property and that if anyone should be concerned about privacy impacts it should be the applicant. ASFOUR/MURAKAMI MOVED TO APPROVE DR-93-040. PASSED 6-1 (MORAN OPPOSED). 3. V-93-027 - Sinsley; 15227 Quito Road; request for Variance approval to re- establish a 30 ft. front setback requirement along the east property line, consistent with the subdivision site development plan approval. Since the subdivision was approved, Zoning Ordinance amendments were adopted which now require a 70 ft. setback from this property line. The property is approximately one acre in size and is located within an R-1-40,000 zoning district. ------------------------------------------------------------- ~ • Planning Commission Minutes Meeting of December 8, 1993 Page 8 Planner Walgren presented the Report dated December 8, 1993, and answered questions with regard to the application. Commissioner Kaplan noted that at the land use visit it had been explained to her that the granting of this variance application would only be restoring the original setbacks that were place when the tentative subdivision map was approved, and that the precise placement of any future construction on the site would again be reviewed during the design review process. Planner Walgren indicated that Commissioner Kaplan's statement was accurate. Commissioner Kaplan stated that she would have trouble going back on the setbacks which the City had originally "cut a deal for" or granted approval for with regard to this property. Commissioner Caldwell stated that she had grappled with the issue brought up by Commission Kaplan and inquired why staff had not used the location of the existing trees to constitute special physical circumstance for basis of supporting the variance request. She stated that she felt that the tree location would constitute a special physical circumstance more so than some of the findings made in the staff report and which she feels speak more to the event that there was a deal or a previous approval with regard to the setbacks. Planner Walgren explained that staff had discussed tree location, but was reluctant to put too much weight on the trees in the resolution based on the fact that two of the Monterey pines appear to be in poor condition. He explained that staff feels that the special circumstance that can be used as a basis for variance approval is not that the City cut a deal when it (subdivision) was first approved, but that when the restrictions were put on the property, it was deemed reasonable to restrict the 154 foot back half because of the other development regulations in place at that time. The hardship, he explained , is that if the City had known back at that time that 20% of the parcel's entire depth was going to be used to calculate the setback it would have effected how the back 154 foot open space was perceived - it is not useable as part of the building envelope, but is used to calculate the building setback. Commissioner Wolfe noted that should the original setbacks be restored for this piece of property, the applicant would be allowed to design a house which would preserve more of the existing vegetation on the property. Commissioner Jacobs inquired whether the Planning Commission would retain any control over the placement of a future house within the envelope if the original setbacks/building envelope was restored (variance granted). • • Planning Commission Minutes Meeting of December 8, 1993 Page 9 Planner Walgren explained that the design would have to come before the Planning Commission for approval and at that time the Commission could review and modify the location of the house if they found it necessary. Commissioner Kaplan inquired about the expiration date assigned to the variance. Planner Walgren explained that variance approvals do not run with the land and that if construction does not commence within a certain time period the variance expires. CHAIRPERSON MORAN OPENED THE PUBLIC HEARING AT 7:32 P.M. Ray Sinsley, applicant, 12280 Far Ranch Road, explained that he had purchased the subject property 2 to 3 years prior to the ordinance change. He stated that he had purchased the property with intentions to develop the property based on the codes that were in place at that time. He explained that the change in the ordinance greatly restricts development of the property and deprives him of privileges enjoyed by other owners of property within the same zoning district. He urged the Commission to approve the variance request so that he may proceed with plans to develop the property. He stated that without the variance acceptable development of this property would be very challenging if not impossible. There was no one else wishing to speak. ASFOUR/KAPLAN MOVED TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING. PASSED 7-0. ASFOUR/KAPLAN MOVED TO APPROVE V-93-027. Chairperson Moran stated that she had been persuaded by the staff report and the applicants testimony and would be supporting approval of the variance request. COMMISSIONER CALDWELL ASKED IF THE MAKER AND SECONDER OF THE MOTION WOULD BE AGREEABLE TO THE ADDITION OF LANGUAGE REFERENCING THE LOCATION OF THE TREES IN SUB-PARAGRAPH A WHICH DISCUSSES SPECIAL PHYSICAL CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE PROPERTY AND ALSO INCLUDING IN SUB-PARAGRAPH C WHICH DISCUSSES THAT THE GRANTING OF THE VARIANCE WILL NOT BE DETRIMENTAL TO THE HEALTH, SAFETY AND WELFARE AND ETC., THAT ONE OF THE PLANNING COMMISSIONS INTENTIONS IN GRANTING THIS VARIANCE IS TO MAINTAIN THE MAXIMUM NUMBER OF TREES ON THIS PROPERTY. THIS SUGGESTION WAS ACCEPTED BY THE MAKER AND SECONDER OF THE MOTION. • • Planning Commission Minutes Meeting of December 8, 1993 Page 10. THE MOTION PASSED 7-0. 4. DR-93-024 - Loh; 20651 Leonard Ave., request for Design Review approval to construct a 1,743 sq. ft. second story and 793 sq. ft. of first floor area to an existing 3,235 sq. ft. one-story residence per Chapter 15 of the City Code. The property is 64,411 sq. ft. and is located within an R-1-40,000 zoning district. Planner Walgren presented the Report dated December 8, 1993. CHAIRPERSON MORAN OPENED THE PUBLIC HEARING AT 8:35 P.M. Thomas Lu, design architect, spoke in favor of the application and explained that in designing the residence effort was made to maintain as much open space as possible and in retaining most of the existing landscaping on the property. He stated that he did not feel there would be any privacy impacts and expressed his opinion that the design was compatible with the other homes in the area. Mr. Lu also answered questions from the Commission with regard to the project. There was no one else wishing to speak on this application. ASFOUR/KAPLAN MOVED TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING AT 8:40 P.M. PASSED 7-0. Commissioner Asfour noted the existence of an accessory structure on the property and stated that he felt that this structure had at one time been used as a second living unit and that this should be prohibited. Planner Walgren pointed out that Condition #9 prohibits use of this building as a second living unit. ASFOUR/MURAKAMI MOVED TO APPROVE DR-93-024 PER THE RECOMMENDATIONS MADE IN THE STAFF REPORT. PASSED 7-0. Mr. Lu indicated a desire to address the Commission. CALDWELL/ASFOUR MOVED TO RE-OPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING TO ALLOW THE APPLICANT'S REPRESENTATIVE TO ADDRESS THE COMMISSION. Mr. Lu, stated that the applicant was curious about the reason for Condition #10. J • • Planning Commission Minutes Meeting of December 8, 1993 Page 11 Chairperson Moran and Planner Walgren explained that this condition was a standard condition recommended by the City Attorney to protect the City from incurring any legal cost with regard to applications and the subsequent actions taken on applications. KAPLAN/ASFOUR MOVED TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING AT 8:44 P.M. PASSED. At 8:44 p.m. the meeting was recessed. At 8:54 p.m. the meeting was reconvened. 5. DR-93-014 - Saratoga Pacific Oaks; 14996 Gypsy Hills Road, Lot #30, request for Design Review approval to construct a new 4,935 sq. ft. two-story residence per Chapter 15 of the City Code. The subject property is 55,310 sq. ft. and is located in an R-1-40,000 zone district. Planner Walgren presented the Report dated December 8, 1993 and answered questions from the Commission. Chairperson Moran inquired if there was a condition which prohibited additional grading on the property. Planner Walgren explained that should the applicant need to do any additional grading other than what is approved, the additional grading would be considered a modification to the plans and would need the Planning Commission's review and approval prior to commencement of the additional grading. Commissioner Caldwell noted that in the past, on some applications, the Commission has prohibited certain construction which would warrant additional grading for example construction of a pool or sports court. CHAIRPERSON MORAN OPENED THE PUBLIC HEARING AT 9:00 P.M. Virginia Fanelli, representing the applicant, spoke in favor of the application and discussed such issues as the design's minimization of mass and bulk, setbacks, varying roof lines, and the reduction of the original amount of grading needed. Ms. Fanelli explained that the applicants are not interested in building a sports court on the property, but would like to construct a pool some time in the future. She requested that the Commission allow flexibility with regard to excavating for the purpose of constructing a pool. She stated that the neighbors have reviewed the plans and found them to be acceptable. She pointed out that many of the ~ • Planning Commission Minutes Meeting of December 8, 1993 Page 12 homes in the area required great amounts of grading prior to their construction. She urged the Commission to approve the application and answered questions from the Commission with regard to the project. There was no one else wishing to speak. ASFOUR/KAPLAN MOVED TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING AT 9:02 P.M. PASSED 7-0. Commissioner Kaplan stated that she is disturbed by the amount of grading needed for the basement and the driveway. She stated that she would like stronger language added to Condition #7 that would prohibit any additional grading or construction of a sports court etc which would require additional grading of the property without Planning Commission review. Planner Walgren stated that the Commission may want to add language that prohibits any grading greater than a certain number of cubic yards without Planning Commission review and approval. He explained that using a specific figure may be better than calling out certain uses such as construction of a pool or sports court construction. Planner Walgren suggested that this number not be in excess of 50 cubic yards. Chairperson Moran stated that a separate condition with this language may be beneficial. Commissioner Caldwell stated that she also shares Commissioner Kaplan's concern with regard to the grading and feels that additional grading on this property should be reviewed. She explained that the grading is an actual repositioning of the natural landscape into unnatural contours. She stated that she supports Commissioner Kaplan's suggestion for stronger language regarding the grading. CALDWELL/KAPLAN MOVED TO APPROVE DR-93-024 WITH THE ADDITION OF A CONDITION THAT NO ADDITIONAL GRADING IN EXCESS OF 50 CUBIC YARDS BE PERMITTED WITHOUT PLANNING COMMISSION APPROVAL. THE MOTION PASSED 7-0. 6. A-726.2 - Coates & Sowards; 18780 Cox Ave., request for modification of a previously approved sign program for the Quito Village shopping center to allow an optometrist's business identification sign to be located on the roof parapet. The subject property is within the C- Nzone district. Planner Walgren presented the Report dated December 8, 1993 and noted the receipt of a letter from Mr. and Mrs. Daus. He stated that with regard to the . : ~ • • Planning Commission Minutes Meeting of December 8, 1993 Page 13 letter, he feels th~:t the Daus misunderstood the public notice, but that the main message in the letter was a request for discreet signage. Planner Walgren also answered questions from the Commission with regard to the application. CHAIRPERSON MORAN OPENED THE PUBLIC HEARING AT 9:10 P.M. Wanda Henry, representing Coates & Sowards, the property management company, explained that the tenant requesting the modification to the approved sign program and three other tE~nants of the shopping center had to relocate because of the 24 Hour Nautilus' occupancy in the shopping center. She explained that the tenant was relocated to the tack of the shopping center and has no visibility from the street which he once enjoyed. She stated that the tenant feels that his business (optometrist) is based on visibility to the customers coming in to utilize the shopping center and has requested that he be allowed to place his sign on the roof parapet so it can be seen from the street. ;she urged the Commission to grant the request and answered questions from the Commission. In response to Commissioner Murakami's question, Ms. Henry explained that the tenant's lease was on a month to month basis and he was not force to moved, but when 24 Hour Nautilus moved in, the optometrist's office was relocated by the landlord to the only location they (the property managers) felt would work for them and that would accommodate the other tenants in the shopping center. She stated that this new location was not the optometrist's first choice location. She also noted that there are 20 other tenants in the shopping center. There was no one; else wishing to speak. ASFOUR/KAPLp,N MOVED TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING AT 9:12 P.M. PASSED 7-0. Commissioner Asfour explained that he had driven around the shopping center and was initially concE;rned with regard to the location of the sign. He stated that he is primarily concern ~d with setting a precedent by granting an approval thus triggering other businesses to apply for a similar exception to the sign program or for similar sign placement o ~ other locations. He stated that he favored denial of this application as the allowable location afforded adequate visibility. ASFOUR/WOLFI= MOVED TO DENY APPLICATION A-726.2 PER STAFF RECOMMENDA"LION IN THE STAFF REPORT. Chairperson Mor<~n stated that she agreed with the comments made by Commissioner Asfour. ~; - ~ • Planning Commission Minutes Meeting of December 8, 1993 Page 14 THE MOTION PASSED 7-0. Community Development Director Curtis announced to the Commission that Ms. Henry was very much involved in working with the neighbors behind the shopping center, getting the new wall put in, getting the new trash compactor and the new trash enclosure installed and she also assisted in the general clean up of the area. The Commission expressed appreciation and thanked Ms. Henry for her efforts. DIRECTOR'S ITEMS 1. SM-93-003; Johnson, 14891 Vine Street. Planner Walgren reported on the requested modifications. He explained that a notice had been sent out to the neighbors informing them of the modification request and noted that none of the down slope neighbors had expressed any objections to these modifications. He further stated that the City did however, receive a letter from a neighbor located above this property requesting that the Planning Commission see the wall before acting on the modification request. Planner Walgren stated that the Commission had indeed visited the site and he also pointed out that the property owner who wrote the letter would not be looking directly down on the wall. Planner Walgren answered questions from the Commission and indicated that staff could support the modification which they feel would provide more privacy than the original wall design. The Commission discussed the request and expressed acceptance of the requested modification. Director Curtis reminded the Commission of the upcoming Planning Commission retreat scheduled for January 14, 1994, from 8:00 a.m. to 1:00 p.m. COMMISSION ITEMS Commissioner Asfour reported on the City Council's review of the Big Basin Way Bistro application. He stated that 12 property owners came to speak in opposition to the application and urged denial of the use permit recommended for approval by the Planning Commission. He stated that he (Commissioner Asfour) was compelled to address the Council as individuals. He requested that the issue of Planning Commissioners speaking at the Council meetings as an individual be addressed at the worksession. ~' ,~: ~ • • Planning Commission Minutes Meeting of December 8, 1993 Page 15 Chairperson Moran stated that the issue is already agendized for discussion at the worksession. Commissioner Asfour stated that he would like to see some kind of deadline for submitting letters to the Planning Commission. He explained that letters are often submitted the night of the meeting and it is hard for the Commissioners to read and fully digest the content of the letter. He reported that many times there are several letters submitted the night of the meeting. There was discussion regarding this issue and also regarding the Commissioners receiving phone calls at home from various applicants. It was the general consensus of the staff and the Commission after discussion that there really wasn't much that could be done with regard to receiving letters the night of the meeting. Commissioner Caldwell suggested this be further discussed at the retreat and also noted that at past meetings the Commission has sometimes taken a recess for the purpose of reading these letters. Responding to Commissioner Murakami's concerns regarding applicants approaching and/or calling individual Commissioners to discuss their projects, Commissioner Caldwell stated that she has found that informing the applicant that the Commissioners are obligated to disclose any discussions that take place with regard to the application usually deters the applicant from trying to further discuss the application outside the public hearing forum. Commissioner Caldwell stated that Chairperson Moran reminds the applicants, when she is approached, that any comments with regard to the application should be made during the public hearing. Commissioner Caldwell stated that she feels this response works well in discouraging further discussion of the application. Director Curtis commented on this issue and explained that when applicants ask about contacting the Commissioners staff informs them that contacting and discussing the application is between them and the Commissioners, if they want to discuss the issue. He further explained that staff encourages the applicants to submit any additional information on the project to the staff so it can be forwarded on to the Commissioners. With regard to receipt of letters at the meeting, Director Curtis agreed that the most effective way to handle this situation is to take a short recess in order to review the letters. Chairperson Moran requested that there be discussion at the worksession on the City's policy regarding when the Planning Commission should adopt a resolution and when it is appropriate for the Planning Commission to continue the item for staff to draft up a suitable resolution. She noted that she thought the Council had a policy regarding this issue and that the Planning Commission may need to adopt a policy with regard to this matter. Commissioner Jacobs stated that he would like to discuss the philosophy staff uses with regard to making recommendations made on applications that tend to be in a "gray area" of the Code. ~ F ~ .~ r • • Planning Commission Minutes Meeting of December 8, 1993 Page 16 Commissioner Caldwell inquired if the City Attorney would be present at the retreat. Staff indicated that the City Attorney would be present. She requested that the Staff/City Attorney/Planning Commission relations be addressed at the retreat. Staff acknowledged the (above) requests for topics to be discussed at the Planning Commission retreat. COMMUNICATIONS Written 1. City Council Minutes - 9/21, 11 /3, 11 /9, 11 /17 & 11 /23/93 Oral None City Council ADJOURNMENT At 9:35 p.m., Chairperson Moran adjourned the meeting. Andrea M. Chelemengos Minutes Clerk