Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout06-08-1994 Planning Commission Minutes.~ JUNE 8, 1994 - 7:30 p.m. `. City Council Chambers, 13777 Fruitvale Ave. Regular Meeting ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ The meeting was called to order at 7:30 p.m. by Chairman Asfour. ROLL CALL Present: Chairman Asfour, Commissioners Jacobs, Moran, Murakami and Wolfe Late: None Absent: Commissioners Caldwell and Kaplan Planner Walgren informed the Commission that Commissioner Caldwell informed staff that she would not be able to attend the meeting this evening City Attorney Riback was present. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE MINUTES ON A MOTION BY COMMISSIONERS WOLFE/JACOBS, THE COMMISSION APPROVED THE MAY 25, 1994 MINUTES WITH THE FOLLOWING AMENDMENTS: - age ,second paragraph, to read: l~lr~ Becker.... - Page 3, paragraph 10 to read: Chairman Asfour thanked the Finnigans and Mr. Rasp for their willingness to modify the plans to address the Commission's concern" - Page 6, Paragraph 4 to read: "Chairman Asfour stated that he had visited the site. He commented that it was his opinion that the garage enclosure ~ t?v~l~ encroach on the tiaI~ tree...." - Page 9, paragraph 4 to read: "Chairman Asfour commented that he would want to see a redesign to allow retention of the tree...." THE MOTION CARRIED 4-0-1 AS FOLLOWS: AYES: ASFOUR, JACOBS, MURAKAMI, WOLFE: NOES: NONE; ABSTAIN: MORAN; ABSENT: CALDWELL, KAPLAN. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS No comments were offered. REPORT OF POSTING AGENDA Pursuant to Government Code 54954.2, the agenda for this meeting was properly posted on June 3, 1994. Planning Commission Mi>~s June 8, 1994 Page - 2 - Technical Corrections to Packet No corrections were noted. CONSENT CALENDAR PUBLIC HEARING CONSENT CALENDAR 1. V-94-004 - Barry; 19281 San Marcos Rd., request for Variance approval to allow an existing carport to be removed and three-car attached garage to be built in its place. The Variance is necessary to allow the new garage to be located 3 ft. from the side and 5 ft. from the rear property line; the Zoning Ordinance requires 30 ft. and 20 ft. setbacks respectively. The property is 1.4 acres in size and is located within an R-1-40,000 zoning district (cont. to 6/22/94 to have the City Arborist review the proposal and provide his assessment of the health of the trees in question; application expires 10/29/94). 2. DR-93-009 - Sarkosh; southeast corner of Sobey Rd. and Old Wood Rd., request for Design Review approval to construct a new 5,342 sq. ft. two-story residence per Chapter 15 of the City Code. The request also involves an exception to the allowable floor area rule. The site is a vacant 40,816 sq. ft. parcel located within an R-1-40,000 zone district (cont. to 7/13/94 at the request of the applicant; application expires 11/12/94). 3. DR-91-033.1 - Cocciardi; 22631 Mt. Eden Rd., request for none-year extension of a SD-91-003.1 - previously approved Design Review and Building Site approval application to remodel and expand an existing two-story residence with one and two-story additions pursuant to Chapter 15 of the City Code. The proposed residence would have a total square footage of 6,658 sq. ft. The property is approximately 3.2 acres and is located within the HR zone district. ON A MOTION BY COMMISSIONERS MORAN/JACOBS, THE COMMISSION APPROVED CONSENT ITEMS 1, 2, AND 3. THE MOTION CARRIED 5-0 (COMMISSIONERS CALDWELL AND KAPLAN ABSENT) Chairman Asfour congratulated the Commissioners (Jacobs, Moran, Wolfe) who were elected as Council Members. PUBLIC HEARINGS ** `~ Planning Commission Mi~s a June 8, 1994 Page - 3 - 4. SD-94-001 - Bean; 14024 Saratoga Ave., request for Tentative Map approval to subdivide a leve13.19 acre parcel into five single-family parcels ranging in size from 23,200 to 24,00 sq. ft. Demolition of a two-story residence, which is on the City's Heritage Inventory, is also proposed. The subject property is located within an R-1-20,000 zone district and the new lots are proposed to be accessed from a new cul-de-sac located off of Saratoga Ave. An Environmental Negative Declaration has been prepared for Planning Commission consideration (cont. from 5/25/94 to finalize approval Resolution for Planning Commission consideration; application expires 8/17/94). Planner Stanchina presented the staff report on this item. She recommended that condition 30 be amended to read as follows: "All public and private subdivision improvements shall be constructed and accepted by the City prior to the issuance of any grading or permit for each lot." This amendment would allow the applicant to submit design review applications for each individual home and not be restricted to wait for final map approval. Commissioner Moran questioned how many trees were located on the three acre parcel. Planner Stanchina responded that approximately 64 trees were inventoried and that approximately 100 trees were located on the site. She concurred with Commissioner Moran's assessment that 63 trees were ordinance sized and that the applicant proposes to remove 8 trees. Commissioner Wolfe questioned which trees were going to be removed. Planner Stanchina responded that trees 8, 9, 30, 31, 32, 46, 48, and 63 (California Pepper Tree) were proposed for removal. Commissioner Moran noted that Condition 9c stipulates that 7 trees were slated for removal and questioned whether tree 63 should be added to that condition. Planner Stanchina concurred that tree number 63 should be incorporated in Condition 9c. CHAIRMAN ASFOUR OPENED THE PUBLIC HEARING AT 7:45 P.M. Terry Szewczyk, Nowack and Associates, thanked staff for a thorough and fairly conditioned recommendation. He felt that this subdivision has met the requirements as defined at the last meeting (e.g., landscape agreement, replacement trees, realignment of road -shifting the roadway, moving the cul-de-sac to preserve the tree). He felt that the plan was very responsive to tree protection, maintaining the lots with a balanced configuration with the building footprints so that the "shell" would result in an attractive subdivision. In terms of the building height restriction that was of subject matter, he submitted a detailed letter regarding the raised homes in the neighborhood. He stated that the street trees along Heritage Lane have been noted and that the landscaping would be restricted beneath the oak tree(s) for preservation. Commissioner Moran questioned the proposed height of the one story homes in the neighborhood. Planner Stanchina informed the Commission that the average height of the Planning Commission Mi~s • June 8, 1994 Page-4- homes in the area were 14 to 16 feet. In the Saratoga Avenue vicinity and to the north of the subdivision, there were homes that were taller than the 14 to 16 feet height, averaging 18 to 20 feet. Commissioner Moran questioned the elevation difference between this parcel and the adjacent parcel. Mr. Szewczyk responded that the site was a moderate 3 percent slope. To the eye, you would not perceive any grade differential. Commissioner Moran stated that she was concerned for the adjacent neighbors thinking that they were going to have one story neighbors and then end up with homes that are several feet taller and the foundation higher than theirs with the fear of privacy being impacted. Mr. Szewczyk responded that there would not be any considerable fill on the lots that would result in a situation where the lots would be perceived much higher than they really were. Commissioner Moran felt that this was an issue that the Commission should keep track of as the project progresses. COMMISSIONERS JACOBS/MURAKAMI MOVED TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING AT 7:51 P.M. THE MOTION CARRIED 5-0 (COMMISSIONERS CALDWELL AND KAPLAN ABSENT). COMMISSIONERS MORAN/ WOLFE MOVED TO REOPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING. THE MOTION CARRIED 5-0 (COMMISSIONERS CALDWELL AND KAPLAN ABSENT). William Friedmann, Corporate Commercial Services, commented that the trees which were to remain have a location range of 80%, uniform across the entire property. This is to determine the value of the trees to remain. There are four trees scheduled for removal: trees 31 and 32 of a location range of 100% and trees 46 and 48 with a location range of 90%. He informed the Commission that he discussed this issue with Mr. Coats and stated that Mr. Coats agreed that the 80% across the board to be consistent with the other trees on the property. According to his calculation, it would be $80,517 less for trees 31 and 32 and $449 less for trees 46 and 48. Barry Coats, City Arborist, stated that Mr. Friedmann was correct in the assessment value interpretation. Mr. Coats commented that the value of tree 30 was not great because of its condition, but that it does have value and should have its value included. Planner Stanching responded that staff included the value of tree 30 as part of this approval. Chairman Asfour questioned the assessment value of the trees. Mr. Coats responded that he did not have the amended assessment value but would provide that value. COMMISSIONER MORAN/JACOBS MOVED TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING AT 7:57 P.M. THE MOTION CARRIED 5-0 (COMMISSIONERS CALDWELL AND KAPLAN ABSENT. Commissioner Moran stated that this was a sensitive location and that as many trees as possible were being saved. One of the things that the Commission tries to accomplish is to include as a condition of approval items which would make a difference in whether or not Planning Commission Mii~s i June 8, 1994 Page - 5 - the Commission would approve certain subdivision(s). She proposed that a height guideline be established for this area (e.g., 22 feet). Commissioner Wolfe congratulated staff and the developer for taking into consideration the neighbor's concern. He also commented that the design of the wall along Heritage Way would be important to the residents. Commissioner Jacobs requested clarification as to whether Commissioner Moran was suggesting that the resolution be amended to set a height limit of 22 feet. Commissioner Moran responded that she was concerned with the privacy of the adjacent neighbors. Commissioner Jacobs requested the applicant's response regarding the height limitation because he was not sure if the applicant has commenced with design of the homes. COMMISSIONERS MORAN/JACOBS MOVED TO REOPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING. THE MOTION CARRIED 5-0 (COMMISSIONERS CALDWELL AND KAPLAN ABSENT). Mr. William Bean, applicant, felt that the adjacent homes were higher than the 14 feet (more like 18 feet in height). He requested that instead of setting an exact maximum height at this point, he believed that good architecture has to do with size proportion. He would not object to the 22 feet height limit so long as flexibility is allowed. COMMISSIONERS MORAN/JACOBS MOVED TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING AT 8:02 P.M. THE MOTION CARRIED 5-0 (COMMISSIONERS CALDWELL AND KAPLAN ABSENT. Commissioner Murakami stated that Mr. Bean brought up a good point in that an arbitrary height limit may impact the design of the homes and recommended that there be some latitude. He also stated that Mr. Coats alleviated any concerns he had regarding the trees located on site. Chairman Asfour thanked the applicant for working with staff. In one case he hates to see trees removed but if they were of marginal health, they should be replaced for the enjoyment of future generations. Commissioner Jacobs stated that he was satisfied from what Mr. Bean stated in that there should be flexibility with regard to the design review since the Commission has not yet seen what the homes were to look like and that the Commission would have the ultimate decision as far as height. He did not think that the Commission would be forced to accept 24 or 26 foot high one story homes. He would like to maintain flexibility and would not support establishment of height limitations at this time. Commissioner Moran stated that many individuals which she has spoken to state that the planning process is very difficult to work with because the rules keep changing. She would like to make sure that it is clear what the Commission will approve. Planning Commission Mii~s • June 8, 1994 Page-6- Commissioner Jacobs commented that the developer was getting a message that the Commission wants to keep the homes at a reasonable scale to that of the existing neighborhood. If the developer appears before the Commission with homes that are too large, than the developer would have to redesign the homes. Based on what was presented this evening, he felt that the developer would exercise conservative judgment on how high the homes will be. He recommended that the Commission retain flexibility. He concurred with the applicant that good architecture is necessary to assist in determining uniform height limits or setbacks because home designs have not been reviewed. Community Development Director Curtis commented that a condition could be added which stipulates that home designs should not exceed 22 feet unless approved by the Commission based on an exceptional design or design alternative so that there is a tracking mechanism. Chairman Asfour commented that he would not want to complicate the issue at this time because design review would be considered at a later date. Commissioner Wolfe concurred that it may be superfluous to add the height limitation at this time and that the applicant has heard comments as stated by the Commission. COMMISSIONERS WOLFE/MURAKAMI MOVED TO APPROVE THE ENVIRONMENTAL NEGATIVE DECLARATION AND RESOLUTION NO. 94-001 INCORPORATING THE AMENDED REPLACEMENT VALUE AS RECOMMENDED BY THE CITY'S ARBORIST, AMENDMENT TO CONDITION 9C TO INCLUDE TREE 63 AND AMENDMENT TO CONDITION 30 AS RECOMMENDED BY STAFF. THE MOTION PASSED 5-0 (COMMISSIONERS CALDWELL AND KA.PLAN ABSENT). 5. SD-91.-005.1 - Kerwin Ranch L.P.; 13616 Fruitvale Ave., request to amend a Tentative Map condition of approval in order to allow home construction to occur concurrent with subdivision improvements. The Tentative Map was approved in 1992 to allow 16 single family residences; eight accessed via a cul-de-sac extension of Ronnie Way (Phase I) and eight via a cul-de-sac extension of Lisa Marie Ct. The subject property is located within an R-1-20,000 zoning district. Planner Walgren presented the staff report on this item. Commissioner Moran questioned construction time of the exterior wall (what phase would it be constructed). Planner Walgren responded that the wall, all of the landscaping, and pathway will need to be constructed at time of subdivision improvements and accepted by the City prior to acceptance of the subdivision. Commissioner Moran questioned if staff knew if the wall would be built before or after the homes were constructed. Planner Walgren responded that construction of the wall and homes would occur concurrently. CHAIRMAN ASFOUR OPENED THE PUBLIC HEARING AT 8:12 P.M. Planning Commission Mi1~s • June 8, 1994 Page - 7 - James Sisk responded to Commissioner Murakami's questions regarding specific plans for the construction path by stating that the all improvements along Fruitvale and Saratoga Avenues would commence first. Commissioner Moran questioned how long it would take to complete the project. Mr. Sisk responded that he anticipates completion prior to the rainy season (before winter months). AT 8:15 P.M., COMMISSIONERS MORAN/JACOBS MOVED TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING. THE MOTION CARRIED 5-0 (COMMISSIONERS CALDWELL AND KAPLAN ABSENT). COMMISSIONERS MORAN/MURAKAMI MOVED TO APPROVE RESOLUTION NO. SD-91-005.1 PER THE STAFF REPORT. THE MOTION PASSED 5-0 (COMMISSIONERS CALDWELL AND KAPLAN ABSENT). 6. UP-92-005.1 - Saratoga Presbyterian Church; 20455 Herriman Ave., request to amend a Use Permit condition of approval i n order to allow an increase in preschool attendance from 24 to 36 children on three days of each week. This application also constitutes the Presbyterian Church's status review requirement of preschool activities. Planner Walgren presented the staff report on this item. Commissioner Moran questioned if staff was aware of any negative traffic impacts associated with this use. Planner Walgren responded that the city has not conducted a site specific traffic count nor analysis during rush hours. However, public works traffic counts indicate that no unusual increase in traffic conflicts at this intersection has been experienced nor complaints of concerns addressed. Commissioner Jacobs requested staff clarification regarding the request for increase in enrollment from 24 to 36 students because staff's analysis indicates that the classroom would accommodate a maximum of 15 children each for a total of 30 pupils per session. He questioned whether the enrollment would be 30 or 36 pupils. Planner Walgren responded that there would be an overlap of students between sessions. He (Walgren) noted that the request was for a maximum of 36 students on a daily basis. Commissioner Wolfe questioned whether the use permit would need to be reviewed yearly as enrollment increases and whether the classroom and parking were adequate to accommodate project expansion? Planner Walgren responded that he believed that there was physical room for expansion without building new facilities and that the use permit would need to be reviewed if it exceeds 36 students. CHAIRMAN ASFOUR OPENED THE PUBLIC HEARING AT 8:20 P.M. Planning Commission Mii~s • June 8, 1994 Page - 8 - Sheri (Newman) Smartt, Director of Saratoga Presbyterian Preschool, informed the Commission that full enrollment was maintained for the full year. She addressed the discrepancies in numbers by stating that State Licensing limits the capacity of children in each classroom. The capacity of the classroom was 15. Two years ago, the preschool requested 24 student (12 students per classroom). She informed the Commission that the third classroom has been approved by State Licensing to accommodate 20 additional students. However, the third classroom would only have 12 students. Ms. Smartt stated that there would be 36 children at one time in the preschool but in two sessions. There would be a total enrollment of 72 students with no more than 36 students at a given time. She informed the Commission that she wrote a letter to the adjacent neighbors explaining the amendment to the use permit. She informed the Commission that no one has contacted her or expressed concern regarding the additional 12 students. Commissioner Moran stated her appreciation to Ms. Smartt for reaching out to the neighbors informing them of her proposal. Chairman Asfour questioned if there were any plans for future school expansion. Ms. Smartt responded that the Church was providing the preschool as a community outreach program. The request for an increase was due to the high demand for the preschool. She stated that it would be helpful if the student size was not limited to 36. Only three classrooms at a time would be held because of the limited facilities (the facilities are too small and would he difficult to run more than three classrooms at a time). Commissioner Wolfe recommended that a greater number of students be approved to accommodate future expansion. Ms. Smartt commented that every time she has to reappear before the Commission it becomes a financial burden to the Church as anon-profit and stated her appreciation with any leeway that the Commission could grant. She questioned if fees could be waived for non-profit organizations. Community Development Director Curtis commented that if the use permit was to return, a direct cost of advertising would be charged which is incurred and that the applicant would not be charged a whole new fee. He informed Ms. Smartt that the City Council was the only body authorized to waive application fees. Nancy Tronson, Lexington Court, a member of the church as well as a neighbor who backs up to the church, informed the Commission that she has never experienced any problems with the preschool nor with noise. AT 8:31 P.M., COMMISSIONERS JACOBS/MORAN MOVED TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING. THE MOTION CARRIED 5-0 (COMMISSIONERS CALDWELL AND KAPLAN ABSENT). COMMISSIONERS MORAN/WOLFE MOVED TO APPROVE RESOLUTION NO. UP- 92-005.1 PER THE STAFF REPORT. THE MOTION PASSED 5-0 (COMMISSIONERS CALDWELL AND KAPLAN ABSENT). Planning Commission Mi~s S June 8, 1994 . Page-9- 7. DR-94-021 - Lee; 19120 Austin Way, request for Design Review approval to construct a 2,105 sq. ft. single story addition and renovation to an existing 3,004 sq. ft. residence pursuant to Chapter 15 of the City Code. The renovated residence will have a maximum height of 20 feet. The property is approximately 43,647 sq. ft. and is located within the R-1- 40,000 zone district. Planner Walgren presented the staff report on this item. Commissioner Jacobs questioned if a height of 18 feet was proposed by the applicant instead of 19.75 feet, would the applicant be before the Commission tonight. Planner Walgren responded that had an 18 feet height limit be proposed, that this application would not be before the Commission. CHAIRMAN ASFOUR OPENED THE PUBLIC HEARING AT 8:35 P.M. David Perng, architect, addressed the project design and requested Commission approval. AT 8:36 P.M., COMMISSIONERS MORAN/JACOBS MOVED TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING. THE MOTION CARRIED 5-0 (COMMISSIONERS CALDWELL AND KAPLAN ABSENT). COMMISSIONERS MURAKAMI/MORAN MOVED TO APPROVE RESOLUTION NO. DR-94-021 PER THE STAFF REPORT. THE MOTION PASSED 5-0 (COMMISSIONERS CALDWELL AND KAPLAN ABSENT). 8. AZO-94-001 - An Ordinance of the City of Saratoga amending Section ~15-30 by adding new provisions to the Code of the City of Saratoga relating to the size, location, quantity and duration of temporary merchant signs. Community Development Director Curtis presented the staff report on this item. Staff recommended that the public hearing be opened and testimony received from the Chamber. Should the Commission concur that amendments are warranted, the Commission should direct staff to return with specific changes that it feels are appropriate. CHAIRMAN ASFOUR OPENED THE PUBLIC HEARING AT 8:40 P.M. Preston Wisnor, past president of the Chamber of Commerce, informed the Commission that the proposal was at the request of many Chamber members who felt that signage was restrictive and a detriment to bringing business and keeping businesses open. Primarily, the concern tonight was to obtain quick relief on the temporary signage issue. The Chamber has put together the draft before the Commission in October and submitted to the City Manager, City Council, and Planning Department for their review. Incorporated into the draft sign ordinance were excerpts from the Cities of Los Gatos, Saratoga and Campbell. Those excerpts were incorporated into the City of Saratoga's Sign Ordinance. He requested city approval of temporary signage. Planning Commission Miis • June 8, 1994 Page - 10 - Carl Orr, owner of Color Shoppe Interiors, current Chamber President, indicated that his main emphasis for getting involved with Chamber activities has been his concern for his business and those of his neighboring businesses. He informed the Commission that he receives numerous phone calls to see what can be done to increase business visibility. He did not feel that businesses were competing with businesses in Saratoga but were competing with competitors across Prospect Road (Cupertino and San Jose merchants). He also receives calls at his business establishment from homeowners/residents who get lost. He informed the Commission that he took photographs from both sides of the railroad crossing to Stevens Creek Boulevard from the curb. The photographs depict various types of temporary signs which the Chamber is seeking (e.g., sale signs, promotional signs, grand opening signs). Although they are allowed in the City of Saratoga, they are allowed in such a small size, they are considered useless. He requested that the sign ordinance be revised to benefit both the Chamber and the City of Saratoga so that business could generate and increase sales taxes for the City (requested equal footing as neighboring cities). Commissioner Moran commented that all the arguments presented this evening made a lot of sense. She questioned if the request was for each store site to be allowed two, 4' x 10' foot banners on them for up to nine months of the year. Mr. Orr responded that in deed that was the request before the Commission. However, he (Mr. Orr) felt that the chance that businesses would do that would be very slight. He requested that sales be allowed signage. Commissioner Moran questioned if the Chamber had a philosophy to signs that stipulates that the Chamber would rather have permanent signage that are "good looking, pretty, and visible" and try to reduce the number of flags and banners. Mr. Orr responded that the Chamber was looking for the opportunity to promote a sale, special event or grand opening for a certain length of time. He suggested that balloons be allowed to "perk" up the business building to draw attention to it and create some excitement. Commissioner Moran questioned the reason for the six month period. Mr. Orr responded that some businesses were seasonal (e.g., Christmas season, pool season, etc.). He felt that the limitation was to ensure that temporary signage were not utilized all year round. He suggested that temporary signage be limited to so many weeks per quarter. Community Development Director Curtis recommended a one year sunset clause to proposed amendments unless extended by adoption of a permanent ordinance. He informed the Commission that the direction of the Council was to expedite this process. Temporary signs would be approved temporarily and that a sunset clause would be in place should the amendment to the sign ordinance not be approved. Commissioner Jacobs questioned whether a marketing consultant or anyone with expertise in signage or advertising was sought for assistance? Community Development Director Curtis responded that typically, a work session would be conducted to discuss changes to an ordinance. However, staff was directed by the City Council to expedite this amendment. Therefore, no consultants were retained to assist in the marketing analysis of the proposed sign ordinance amendment. Commissioner Jacobs commented that the reason that the City of Saratoga has a sign ordinance in place is to prevent the type of signage that is seen in adjacent communities ' Planning Commission Mi~s • June 8, 1994 Page - 11 - (e.g., City of San Jose). He felt that what was needed was a consultant to tell the city just how much signage is needed to correct the situation. He did not feel that the residents of Saratoga would support the signage that is seen in the City of San Jose. Mr. Orr responded that temporary signs are being requested to announce "sales" or "special events". Commissioner Moran commented that temporary signs were expensive and expressed concern that the Chamber/businesses would obtain a temporary sign permit and invest in temporary signs and felt that it would be difficult to sunset temporary signage. She questioned if Mr. Orr or the City Attorney would want to comment. Mr. Orr responded that a compromise was to invest in canvas signs on a temporary basis (less expansive). Mark Wilkinson, Board of Directors, Chamber of Commerce, stated that Commissioners Jacobs and Murakami were correct in their statements that different zones (business areas) of the City need to have different sizes of sign depending on speed limits, setbacks, etc. He would agree to look at the various location (e.g., Quito Shopping Center). The Chamber of Commerce is charted to do what they can to improve the business climate for the merchants. The businesses in the Quito Shopping Center do not have street exposure and rely on the monument sign in front of the property to advertise their location. He addressed the length of time for temporary signs. He concurred that six months was a long time to allow the use of temporary signs. The Chamber would be flexible with the time-frame. He commented that a 45 to 60 day period would be appreciated. What the Chamber was trying to do was put forth a proposal from which to work from and that the businesses located along Highway 9 were in need of help. Chairman Asfour agreed that businesses needed assistance to ensure their success. However, he did not feel that the recommended six month period for temporary signs would make the sign a temporary one. Commissioner Jacobs expressed concern that if the city was not careful in what it approves (in terms of temporary signage) and if latitude is given with signs, that there may be a community back lash, setting businesses back. He felt that it may be in the best interest of the City and the business as to be careful in the manner it proceeds so that a situation is not created where the public is turned off by the temporary signs. Mr. Wilkinson felt that the temporary signs was the immediate way to proceed at this time. He commented that the Chamber would want to be involved in the review of the sign ordinance process. Commissioner Jacobs questioned if there was a marketing consultant or sign expert within the Chamber membership Mr. Wilkinson responded that he was not aware of any sign experts in the City of Saratoga. He (Jacobs) felt that the City needed a consultant to assist in the preparation of a marketing plan for businesses in the entire city (e.g., signs or brochures). Planning Commission Mi~s June 8, 1994 Page - 12 - Commissioner Moran wanted to make sure that everyone was aware of the detrimental affect that may be associated with temporary signs. She felt that increase in size and visibility of permanent sign was a reasonable consideration to allow all businesses to prosper. Community Development Director Curtis stated for the record that the Saratoga/Sunnyvale Road was known as Business Route 85, not Highway 9. Mr. Wilkinson felt that the City needed to be broken up into districts because of the various characters that the City has (e.g., The Village, Argonaut Shopping Center, etc.) Mr. Wisner concurred with the recommendation that further discussion occur in a work session. He stated that any relief that the City could give would be greatly appreciated and that he would be willing to work with staff towards a compromise. Mary Jane Karas, Saratoga Creek Drive, commented that at the last city council meeting $20,000 was appropriated to stimulate business in the city and that a consultant was to be brought in. She suggested that this might be a good use of that consultant to review this matter. AT 9:25 P.M., COMMISSIONERS MORAN/JACOBS MOVED TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING. THE MOTION CARRIED 5-0 (COMMISSIONERS CALDWELL AND KAPLAN ABSENT). Community Development Director Curtis commented that monies have been set aside by the Council to hire a consultant to determine if there was a need to prepare an economic development proposal in the City, be it a consultant or staff member. The intent being to evaluate the entire realm of businesses (e.g., special events, signage, etc.). He commented that staff was working on many items at this time and recommended that temporary signage be considered as a whole package. He recommended that if something was needed quickly, that a work session be conducted. He informed the Commission that staff did not have the time to prepare a study that would take two to three months to prepare. Commissioner Moran responded that the Council has directed that something be done at this time which would not require a consultant study nor staff time and that temporary sign regulation be approved. She would support this direction. However, she remains concern about the temporariness of a temporary signs. She did not want to be in a position to approve banners or other temporary signs and that a year or months from now when the City approves a sign ordinance, that an amendment to the temporary sign regulations would be required. City Attorney Riback stated that there was no risk of liability to the City for the type of situation as stated by Commissioner Moran because businesses would be made aware of the sunset clause. - Planning Commission Mi~s June 8, 1994 Page - 13 - Commissioner Moran recommended that the Commission conduct a work session next Tuesday (June 14) and continue its work on the review of temporary signs and prepare a draft Ordinance for City Council review. COMMISSIONERS MORAN/WOLFE MADE A MOTION TO REOPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING, CONTINUED THE PUBLIC HEARING INDEFINITELY, DIRECTED STAFF TO SCHEDULE THIS ITEM FOR A WORK SESSION FOR TUESDAY, JUNE 14, 1994, AND THE CHAMBER WAS DIRECTED TO RETURN WITH MODIFICATIONS TO THE PROPOSAL FOR CONSIDERATION. THE MOTION CARRIED 5-0 (COMMISSIONERS CALDWELL AND KAPLAN ABSENT). Commissioners Moran and Wolfe indicated that they would not be present for the June 14 work session. Mr. Wilkinson felt that it would be helpful if the Commissioners who were present at this meeting attend the work session as opposed to the two Commissioners who were absent due to "catch up" work which the two Commissioners would need to do. Commissioner Jacobs responded that the Commissioners absent this evening would be present at the workshop and would need to be brought up to speed on this issue as they would be involved in the ordinance amendment recommendation to the City Council. DIRECTOR'S ITEMS 1. Tree Preservation and Replacement Policy Community Development Director Curtis informed the Commission that it has considered this item once and directed staff to forward its recommendation to the City Council. Director. The Community Development Director felt that the language left too much to interpretation and would not accomplish what was intended to be accomplished. The amendment was taken back to the Tree Committee for its review. Community Development Director felt that the new language was policy oriented and accomplishes what needs to be done. In stafps perspective, it would allow the Commission in the design review, to require off site tree replacement. Staff recommended that the Commission accept the tree preservation and Replacement Policy and direct staff to forward it to the Council for its consideration. COMMISSIONERS MORAN/MURAKAMI MOVED TO APPROVE THE TREE PRESERVATION AND REPLACEMENT POLICY AND RECOMMENDED THAT ITS ADOPTION BE FORWARDED TO THE CITY COUNCIL. THE MOTION CARRIED 5-0 (COMMISSIONERS CALDWELL AND KAPLAN ABSENT). Community Development Director Curtis informed the Commission that the next scheduled work session following the June 14 work session would be held on Tuesday, July 5. He informed the Commission that he would be out of town and would not be present at the work session. However, an alternate staff member would be conducting the work session. _. ~ ~~~ Planning Commission Mi~s June 8, 1994 ' Page - 14 - Commissioner Moran commented for the record that during the course of this meeting, the newly elected Council Members were acting as Planning Commissioners dealing with planning matters only. COMMISSION ITEMS COMMUNICATIONS Written 1. City Council Minutes - 5/18 & 5/24/94 2. Public Notices for the 6/22/94 Planning Commission Meeting Oral City Council ADJOURNMENT -There being no further business, the meeting adjourned at 9:40 p.m. to 7:30 p.m., June 14, 1994, Senior Adult Day Care Center, 19665 Allendale Ave., Saratoga, CA. IRMA TORREZ MINUTES CLERK